User talk:Terrillja/Archives/03/2009

Dave Grohl
You can revert the knighting edit, but i'd apprciate it if you would keep the rest of my post. The knighting might have been a joke, but the baby and quiting aren't. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieG2448 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnobotany WikiProject
I recently drafted a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ethnobotany. proposal for an Ethnobotany WikiProject] ... check out the project proposal for more details. I thought you might be interested due to your interest in anarcho-primitivism.

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ER

 * Removed from the mainpage. Thanks, -- Terrillja talk  04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Stop Removing My Talk Page Comments
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow Terrillga, you have removed my comments twice. I ask that you please stop doing so. They are on topic, in fact central to the topic and therefore valid. Further they are on the talk page not in the main article. They are not slanderous, obscene, or otherwise delete worthy. Therefore you do not have the right to remove them. See Wikipedia Behavior that is unacceptable. Quote: "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission." 63.196.193.94 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what in there was about improving the Sea Shepherd article? I removed it because it had nothing in it about improving the article, just a bunch of pictures (which were copyrighted and can't be used), and text about how people are killing animals. Nothing specific to SSCS. If you have something specific to improving the article, then post it, but the talkpage is not a general forum. -- Terrillja talk  05:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah Humbug
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow My good sir, I put it to you, that you, my friend, are a person of a very boring and whiny disposition. If you would like to kindly prove to me that "Ian" Fleming is not Darth Vader, nor did fight Ammit in a epic battle, then I would gladly admit my mistakes, but as of now, there is no formidable evidence to support your claims.

I would also like to suggest that you not be so boring, and that you "live a little" on the "wild side" and hopefully search and find a "life". If you would please stop being such a stickler for lameness and boredom, maybe this world wouldn't be such an awful place. It's all on your shoulders. Only you can make a difference.

-Nerlo (The Queen of Sealand)

P.S. Only you are the Chosen One

P.S.S. Only you can prevent Forest Fires —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelro (talk • contribs) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

==You contradict yourself sir. A joke is found amusing, that is the point of a joke. Have you never encountered a joke? But we here at Nelro must give you credit for your hasty replies and corrections, but you'll never find all of them! Have a fun filled day!== User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Granite
The subject of the Granite page is not 'Radiation', the subject is GRANITE, which is a relevant construction material worldwide. There is an attempt being made to make this page a discussion forum for the radiation issue, which is still an undecided debate underway (solely) in the USA, and is not too relevant to the overall subject, which is Granite, its properties (in short), its occurances, its uses et.al. Maybe the debaters can make a seperate page on the "Radiation in Granite" and carry on the one sided attack thereof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs)


 * Well, since the radioactivity of granite is one of its properties, I don't see any reason why it is out of line to discuss it. The post was on the talkpage, whose purpose is to discuss additions/changes to the article, and they were presenting their ideas for how radiation should be mentioned, with links. I don't see the post and overly soapboxing, the person was simply providing some info and what they felt about the product. There is no rule against expressing your opinion as long as it adheres to WP:TALK, and in my opinion, this comment was valid. If you would like to express your views on the subject, then do so there, if you continue to delete other people's comments, you will be blocked for your disruption.


 * And please remember to sign your posts.-- Terrillja talk  16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, well, I erroneously thought that I was reading the comment on the main Granite page, my error, apologies. An unintentional oversight. Of course, a talk page is meant to discuss and all content on that page should have been respected. WIth respect to the main Granite page, actually there had earlier been many previous attempts by people to put in a one sided view, deleting the other side, and as an oversight I just read the 'diff' section and made the error of judgement. Take care.Kulveer (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding you rolling back my edit...
No problem, I sometimes hit the wrong button too. On my second day as an admin I accidentally blocked another admin instead of the vandal he was warning. OOPS! Don't worry about it. Chillum 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The downside of trying to browse WP on an iPod. My fingers are just a bit too big, and the browser tends to stutter. Sorry about that!-- Terrillja talk  14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I was just browsing the page for a science project, and some guy just wrote a bunch of stuff on there. You're welcome. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you left your computer/ account unsecured and someone else posted as you?-- Terrillja talk  17:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I just saw the words typed up above the article "Tyler Doyle is a fat fag!". So I went to the edit to delete it, but it was already gone. When I went back to the page, the text wasn't there anymore. I really don't know what happened. I'm mostly new here. The only thing I've done so far is this, and post questions on the reference desk. I was just afraid I'd broke the website, or something. Y'know, corrupted it. I was having a heart attack, metaphorically speaking. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I didn't see any history of vandalism from you, so I figured something funky was up. if you have any questions about how to do anything here, feel free to ask!-- Terrillja talk  05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't really been a member all that long, so I probably shouldn't have any vandalism history! Come to think of it, I didn't even know about vandalism history...well, anyway, thanks for offering your help! <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi Terrillja. Thanks a lot for your welcome. I´m a medium-advanced user in the spanish Wikipedia, and sometimes I try to help in this Wiki. My english level is mediocre, so I´ll limited me to make minor changes (interwikis, categories, references...). Bye and thanks again ;) --Montgomery (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC) P.S: I´m a newpage patroller too, happy coincidence.


 * That explains a lot. Most new users don't jump in and change categories off the bat. I've looked around on es.wiki a little bit, but my spanish is not good enough to do much. Having said that, I have been using hr.wikipedia to help me learn Croatian. Good to have an endless supply of reading material.-- Terrillja talk  20:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1
Hi, could you please comment on your edits to File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg at Featured picture candidates/M777, as there is a question about the copright? Thanks, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Removals of improvement tags to RIT-related articles
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow You lost me with your removals of the improvement tags from various RIT-related articles on March 26th. Can you clarify what your intent is? Do you believe these articles should not be improved by proper sourcing?
 * In your revert of CLAWS, you state that "Notability is not for a stub". Can you point me to the passage in Notability that backs your claim up?
 * In your revert of RIT College of Liberal Arts, Kate Gleason College of Engineering, and RIT Ambulance you state that "Notability inherited through RIT". Can you point me to the passage in Notability or Notability (organizations and companies) that explains that?
 * In your revert of GravitySimulator you state that "Has inline ref from 3rd party".
 * Are you aware that the reference, |, is primarily about GRAPE, which has its own article, and devotes only nine sentences to the GravitySimulator?
 * Are you aware that the reference's primary author is Stefan Harfst, an RIT post-doc who works for RIT professor David Merritt, so it's tough to believe that its "from 3rd party"?


 * In your revert of Park Point at RIT, you state "Read references. It's at the bottom".
 * Did you notice that all of the sources provided are primary sources when Reliable sources explicitly urges us to document using secondary sources?
 * Did you notice that all of the sources, save the single Democrat and Chronicle source (which is a dead link), are either from RIT, Reporter (RIT's student magazine), or the real estate developer's (Wilmorite's) websites? Do you believe any of these to be Independent sources?
 * Did you read the template text? Template:Primary sources states "Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article."  It does not state "This article does not cite any references or sources."

I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
 * — 129.21.179.65 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability tags on stubs is addressed below. The focus of an article really isn't relevant to using it as a ref, if it has info which would add to the article, then use it. As for who wrote it, I have no clue about the author's relation to the subject, I didn't dig through anything trying to discredit the author. As for PP@RIT, the articles which are hosted on the PP@RIT site and say "staff writer" are from the Rochester D+C. When using those references, I had a choice, use the copies hosted there or link to the D+C site, which is subscription based. In the interest of easy access, I chose to link to the copies on the PP website. You can find the originals on the D+C website with a subscription if you would like to check them. -- Terrillja talk  18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response
You state at the top of your talk page that "If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page", and then you answered on User talk:129.21.179.65?
 * You wrote "I reverted most of your additions of tags originally because they were either the wrong tags or didn't make sense at all."
 * You didn't read the tags. You also didn't read what I wrote above.  They "don't make sense" because you 1) don't understand WP:RS or WP:N and 2) you didn't bother to read the tag text.  You just saw an IP address and jumped to conclusions.
 * Yes, the comment on CLAWS was a typo. The general notability tag is absolutely applicable, however.
 * You keep asserting that "notability tags, which should not be used on stubs". Where does Notability back your claim?
 * You wrote "You had tagged articles as unreferenced when they had references" which means you really do not understand the part of WP:RS that states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I used Template:Primary sources, not Template:Unreferenced as you claim.
 * — 129.21.179.65 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also commented at said talk page. Fightin&#39; Phillie (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We crossed over, I was writing on your talkpage as you were writing on mine. Nothing malicious about that. I prefer to keep things here, especially with IP addresses, since they can be so dynamic. I didn't jump to any conclusions since you were editing as an anon user, we have lots of anon users here who do great work without an account. As for adding notability tags to stubs, it was written somewhere that notability tags should not be applied to stubs, since they are really just a brief blurb about the subject. I think it was on WP:STUB, but guidelines chnage every day, and that may have changed at some point. The downside of using rules which can change dynamically I guess. Personally I dislike them because either an article does not meet WP:GNG and it should go to WP:AfD or it does, and editors should add a source. I am not a fan of drive by tagging, leaving a bunch of tags without any attempt to improve anything. It's fine to leave a tag when you would appreciate the help of others to improve something, but editors should also make some effort themselves to improve it. Just my opinion though. Everyone is entitled to their own ideas, but if you are going to go on a run and tag a pile of articles, you should at least provide some reasoning. As for the notability of specific colleges, there have certainly been plenty of articles written about them or their programs, however for ease of recognition, the articles generally refer to RIT rather than the specific college, since it is more likely to be recognized. Thus, the notability of the colleges is through RIT. At some point I will look for more specific articles about the colleges, but I don't have the time to do so now.


 * As for the use of the unreferenced tags, you used them on some articles, it wouldn't be worth the effort to find them, but I remember seeing that some had references, though they were placed in an external links section, and were not formatted as inline references. Something like Rochester D+C article on whatever with an external link is a reference, it just needs to be reformatted. Again, something that could be improved rather than just slapping a tag on it and moving on.


 * Also, please keep in mind no personal attacks. Everyone here is a volunteer, telling someone that they don't understand something is likely not going to evoke a positive response. Perhaps you could rephrase in a manner such as "I feel that x is in line with policy y, and was wondering why you felt that this was not applicable."-- Terrillja talk  17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are people who are reading the improvement tags and responding constructively. GravitySimulator is now vastly improved in terms of WP:Verifiability (although it still could use a little WP:Make technical articles accessible IMHO).
 * "telling someone that they don't understand something" does not satisfy any of the criteria given in WP:NPA. It might satisfy WP:CIVIL.  Here again, I'm left wondering:  Do you really understand policy?
 * Instead of removing the improvement tags, why don't you hit the library and actually try to address the issues they raise? Deleting them won't make the articles in question any more WP:V.
 * —129.21.179.32 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the only contributor to that article is an WP:SPA, and will likely be blocked for violating the username policy. I removed (some) of the tags once. Other users have removed them later. Apparently I'm not the only one who disagrees. And sure, I'd live to have time to reference everything here, but my time is not infinite. As silly as it sounds, you are actually pushing towards edit warring over tags! I'd suggest that you work on referencing the articles rather than reverting again for your 3rd revert. Over 3 and a rangeblock may be put in, all over edit warring on tags by yourself and 4 different editors (2IP and 2 logged in). You certainly have picked a strange bit of content to war over.-- Terrillja talk  00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely astounded here. Every time you cite policy, you confirm that you don't understand what it is.  Three-revert rule applies to "a single page within a 24-hour period".  Furthermore, any peer review will simply expose that which the tags state explicitly:  These articles are not about notable subjects and it's likely that no WP:RS will be found that can demonstrate their notability.  Additionally, I'd expect to prevail simply based on the fact that people revert the tags with either no explanation (as here) or with completely wacky explanations (like here).
 * As far as your "suggestion", I'd prefer to WP:SPEEDY them, but the addition of the tags give their fans at least a chance to address the concern. In other words, I won't be looking for WP:RS that I don't believe to exist.
 * —129.21.179.32 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It also says you can be blocked even if you do not technically violate 3 reverts per day. (as you are still obviously the same person across different IPs on the same range)-- Terrillja talk  01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

UAA report
I've removed the report on User:DeveloperBenny as it appears there was agreement by admins that it was not a blatant violation of user name policy. Essentially until we have evidence that shows otherwise it is always best to AGF. We don't want to welcome new users to Wikipedia by blocking them straight away. If you are concerned you may request the user to change name on their talk page by using, or consider WP:RFCN. Cheers. Nja 247 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I need to have a better idea of when a username which contains one of the implications of authority (Dev, sysop, steward, etc) would be appropriate. My understanding of WP:U was that we didn't allow them, regardless of what they do, since it could confuse other editors. Perhaps it needs to be reworded to something like these usernames are only not allowed if the person using them is working in admin/developer areas? Because as it's written now, it sounds like we don't allow them, period. I'm all for AGF and not smacking the new people, scaring them off, but if we aren't going to enforce the rules as written, then the rules should be revised/ clarified.-- Terrillja talk  13:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying and perhaps that policy page needs updated (I've updated it). There's issue with names using 'admin' or 'bot' rather than developer as the latter really doesn't exist anymore as a specific type of user right from what I can tell. Nja 247 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll keep it in mind in the future. FWIW, I have had names ending in 'bot' declined before. Up to the discretion of the admin who looks at it I guess.-- Terrillja talk  05:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I've seen it happen as well. As you said it all comes down to the discretion of the admin. I usually block those on the spot unless the name is worded in a way where the 'bot' bit could make up part of an actual name. In all cases I think most of us try to AGF until proven otherwise, but I agree it's not clear in all cases and can cause confusion. Regardless, good work overall! Cheers. Nja 247 06:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Katy Perry
OK, good work. :) I'll take another quick look and see if it passes. Have a great day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has passed! View the talkpage for details. Thank you and have a great day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to say thank you to you. If it wasn't you, perhaps the article isn't GA until now. I'm a bit busy yesterday, and today. Thanks Terrillja. --Efe (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I barely did anything. Once of these days I will actually have the time to get an article up to GA myself. Some day.-- Terrillja talk  02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Watson
The edit is about who founded Greenpeace, and Greenpeace is the principal authority on that issue, I would think. This makes the distinction between primary and secondary sources moot, in this case. Who knows more about its founding than the group that was founded? Probably not a person who was expelled from the group, or anyone who interviewed him. Besides, I think there are probably other sources that dispute how involved Watson was in the actual formation of Greenpeace. Being around at the time is not quite the same as being a principal actor in the act. Thanks for your discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that they have had a fairly rough relationship, trusting what either one says exclusively would be pushing OR. One could argue that Watson has a better idea of what happened than a PR person for greenpeace these days since he was there in the start. If they had a good relationship, I might believe that they (GP) would be a good source to go to, but I certainly would not put it past them trying to distance themselves from Watson. As such, secondary sources are more appropriate, since they are not based on whims of an organization, and have to put their reputation behind their reporting. Greenpeace could just change their mind tomorrow, no harm to them. A news organization does not have the same ability to do so. Which is why we have rules for this kind of thing.


 * Organizations go back and try and change history all the time. Look at the US government... Did we say they definitely had WMD? We said they might have some. Wait, no, we never said anything about that.


 * This is why you use secondary sources. They cannot change their mind on a whim, and any changes must be recorded in history.-- Terrillja talk  20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, you are really stretching reason this time. Are you really just an apologist for Paul Watson? Sure sounds like it sometimes. The Sea Shepherd article is just a big mess and weaseling about things like this are not going to change that. This is just plain silly. You want to put it out for RfC and see what kinds of comments you get? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, what does the SSCS article have to do with anything? RfC? Waste more time? I'll pass. Well I'll go back to your original argument. WP:SPS Greenpeace is a SPS (obviously). On a positive note, I would like to express how I really appreciate the fact that you have shorted your replies, if a reply is too long I tend to lose focus partway through, ADD and such...-- Terrillja talk  20:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're going to try that argument about the Greenpeace ref, you're going to have to strip out about 1/3 of the refs and related text in the Sea Shepherd article, because they are also WP:SPS. At least that will make the article a lot shorter. :) Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had read what I wrote before, I said that the primary souce info should be there, but it should be based on secondary sources. There is all sorts of info that the mainstream press does not have time/money/manpower to report, where primary sources can me used to supplement the secondary sources. Side note: not sure if you saw that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer stopped paper distribution last week and is cutting down on web writers too. Sad time for print media. I know that you had cited them before and might be interested.-- Terrillja talk  21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hard for newspapers everywhere to compete with net news...at least until the next major, prolonged blackout. Rocky Mountain News in Denver last month, where next? I don't see any problem with reporting both sides of the Greenpeace issue, without taking sides, if that's what you want to do. But I don't see any basis for siding with Watson's version over anyone elses. How about neutrality? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What in heaven's name is the problem here this time?! – Ms. Sarita  Confer  03:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty much, do you go with greenpeace's account of his involvement in their organization when they are known to be distancing themselves form him, or do you go with a secondary source which has nothing to gain or lose. I'm going to try and get a version that supports both.-- Terrillja talk  03:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think Greenpeace would be considered an extremely biased source of information concerning this topic. Better to go with secondary sources on this one. If the Greenpeace source is used, I highly suggest finding a secondary source to back it up. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  06:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Terrillja's proposal, but if you can't find what you want, its actually easier just to report both sides as being in disagreement and leave it at that. Like: "Side one says abc, but side two says xyz." WP:NPOV actually says how to do this. Cheers! Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that side one (that Watson was a cofounder of Greenpeace) has many sources and side two (that Watson wasn't a cofounder of Greenpeace) has one source. – Ms. Sarita  Confer  00:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn, Suggesting that an advocacy group - ANY advocacy group - is by default the "primary source" of information regarding it's history is absurd. In fact, by default it should be assumed that all information disseminated by such a group is self-serving to the group as it exists at the publication date. I've been involved with enough non-profits to see the ebb and tide of personality wars within the group regarding who did what, when. The "powers that be" at any given moment will write or re-write history to their convenience. Third party sources are the ONLY legitimate way to confirm any self-serving statement by an advocacy group.76.27.199.240 (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Katy Perry
I knew it was going to be deleted, lol. I didn't mean any harm, really. Sorry about that :} Tribal44 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Tribal44

Sea Shepherd Neutrality Disputes
Hi.

I've been off-line for a while. Previously ISP 76.27.193.128

I've done considerable work on the Sea Shepherd article, and am gratified to see most of it intact.

Most frequently, I have defended the integrity of the article against detractors of the Society who are not too keen on using encyclopedia-quality entries to make their point.

This time, under this ISP address, I am proposing making revisions which move the other direction; removing terminology which is prejudicial in favor of the Society. You may recall that, although I oppose the society's tactics, I support their goals and am most interested in an accurate, neutral and properly cited article.

I have made suggestions on the Sea Shepherd "discussion" page in that regard, and would invite your opinion on the proposed changes. Keep up the good work. 76.27.199.240 (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I'm quite busy right now, but I will look over those when I have some time.-- Terrillja talk  17:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that.

I was freaking out trying to correct it.

Thank you,

Mando —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.108.64 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)