User talk:The Good Doctor Fry

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Input requested at Sunset
Hi The Good Doctor Fry,

After a quick browse through the history of Sunset I've noticed you've previously edited the page. Your input is now requested in choosing a new lead picture here. Thanks for your time, --Fir0002 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

sunset discussion
I tried to move our discussion to the bottom of the talk page: Talk:Sunset. Please put your comments there. Is it OK if I move your last posting down there? I don't think anyone is going to watch or participate in the conversation at the bottom of that long section further up the page. Spiel496 (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spiel, sure,  feel free to move text to a more useful place. I wasn't being intentionally difficult by continuing to write in the upper section - no hidden desire for monologues - I'm just not a savvy wikipedia user, so I continued to bump along in the upper section, (thinking that you were not addressing the points), and I just now noted 3 months of dialogues that have occurred at the bottom of the discussion section.

In a previous edit, I attempted to make 'middle-ground' edits that included wavelength depletion of blues, but maintained 2 separate explanations of a blue sky and intense red sunsets, since a single mathematical or scientific model does not explain both phenomena, and it seems that calling both phenomena by the single term 'wavelength dependent', is misleading to most readers. From the view of a scientific novice looking for information and sources on sunsets, I think a final Wiki version really needs mention of both Mie and Rayleigh scattering, so, they have Wiki references & can choose (or not) to dig deeper into the causes of the colors.

I cannot now find that earler 'middle-ground' blending to the two texts, so, I temporarily substituted the simplified version that is factually correct. Hope you enjoy the day, steveThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Al Gore and the environment. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. ''

Please take some time and read WP:BLP, which is Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living persons. Your text is not acceptable according to that policy. For instance this sentence, is POV, unsourced and contentious. You are doing original research which is another thing that is a no-go on Wikipedia:
 * As happens with many historical figures like Jefferson and slavery, politicians words and beliefs often run counter to the realities of their actions. Al Gore's record on the environment has two very different faces. The public and politician Gore advocated environmental protection, while Vice President Gore over saw 100's millions of record cuts in environmental spending and budgetary cuts that portrayed a completely different persona.

Please find direct and reliable secondary sourcing for all information that you add about living persons. '' Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Al Gore's Years of Spending Cuts in Environmental Clean-ups at America's Dirtiest Sites
In an effort to bring relevant facts to this article, I have edited the Vice Presidential section to describe the $100's of millions in US federal budget cuts made by Clinton & Gore, reducing environmental enforcement and reducing environmental cleanups. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site had some of the worst radioactivity and High Explosives contamination in the USA from WW2 and the Cold War. Clinton and Gore cut LANL's Environmental Restoration (ER) Program's budget from it's high of $100 million under the first Bush Administration, reduced down to a level ($27 million)that supported only govt employee salaries, leaving no money for actual clean-ups or sampling of contaminated sites across LANL. Clinton-Gore cut federal environmental clean-up spending across the US, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in sampling at contaminated DOD & DOE sites, causing 2/3 of the US environmental lab community to go out of business between 1993-1998, due to the dramatic drop in federal environmental clean-ups. (Check the number of laboratories registered with California certifications for confirmation.) I was an official at a large environmental lab that did work at all but 2 of the major US DOE sites, and the local and regional DOE officials and scientists were muzzled by their Washington management at the time. While I was working on a multi-million $ drinking water clean-up project in Kiev, Ukraine, Oct 1993, Al Gore personally negotiated visited Kiev and negotiated a deal eliminating the funding local USAID environmental projects, to pay for an agreement for the US to pay $60 million in Ukraine's previous year's unpaid fuel bills in return for "privatization" efforts by Kuchma & the Ukrainian Govt. Our USAID office manager made it very clear that Mr. Gore had to immediately take all of our Ukrainian environmental funding and other Newly Independent State's environmental project's funding to pay for his agreement with Kuchma. For the person who keeps deleting this information, look up the LANL ER budget from 1990 - 2000 and you can read the results for yourself. I currently do not have access to Govt. records, but a simple review of DOE and DOD environmental spending budgets during the Clinton Gore administration will prove the veracity of the facts that Clinton-Gore slashed federal spending on environmental clean-ups at contaminated DOD & DOE sites in an effort to reduce the deficits and balance the budget.

=
===================================================================================== doubled repeated entry deletedThe Good Doctor Fry (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

=
===================================================================================== NY Times December 20, 1994 reported "...senior Clinton Administration officials explained the broad details of proposed budget cuts in energy, transportation and housing programs, ... Of the $10.6 billion the Energy Department has proposed to cut, $4.4 billion is in its environmental budget. " http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/20/us/president-s-suggested-reductions-face-many-obstacles.html?scp=2&sq=+President+Clinton++%244.4+billion+environmental&st=nyt

Does a $4.4 billion dollar planned cut by Clinton Gore, a cut in DOE environmental spending merit mention? I currently am outside the United States and do not have access to Federal Govt. Budget and Los Alamos official records, but I was working there during that period, and the Environmental Restoration budget at LANL was definitely cut from $100 million under the first Bush president, and LANL's environmental clean-ups ground to a halt under Clinton-Gore. A lack of sources does not change the facts. Gore's secret deal with Kuchma that cut US environmental spending in Eastern Europe will be more difficult to document, but no less true. Our company had $1 million and $5 million dollars cut from promised contractual funding on projects that I personally managed.

Another description of Gore-Clinton's ongoing plans slashing environmental clean-up funding: Jan 21, 1996 "Deep in the fine print of President Clinton's seven-year balanced-budget plan is a little zinger that might surprise supporters impressed by his vow to protect education and environmental programs. In the seventh year, Clinton proposes even deeper cuts in domestic programs than Republicans are proposing in their balanced-budget plan. By that time, he would be out of office, even if he were elected to a second term. The $110 billion in cuts in programs subject to annual spending bills, such as education, environment and defense, is the critical element that tips Clinton's plan into balance in 2002. " http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960121&slug=2309836 It is clear the Clinton-Gore had motive, intent, ability, and authority to cut environmental clean-up spending. Still looking for the written proof with only crummy internet access.

As to my credibility: I was also a US Federal Court Approved Expert Witness on environmental issues, called by the Dept. of Justice to support their actions with the DOE, and I spent 26 years working in US Federal Govt. environmental programs.

If you are interested in facts and reality, please help create an accurate article on Gore's complex history of environmental support. Please research the facts on DOE & DOD federal environmental budget cuts and halts of clean-up programs, deep cuts initiated by Clinton-Gore, and please provide refereces acceptable to you, since first hand factual accounts by govt. approved experts do not meet your standards or Wiki standards.

If you are only interested in showing a biased  politically-correct  image of Gore, then ignore this.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)187.155.105.90 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the templates, but please don't change the article without consensus to do so.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sunset. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

License tagging for File:Raliegh mie fry4.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Raliegh mie fry4.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Raliegh mie fry5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Raliegh mie fry5.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunset/sunrise edit warring
Concerning your recent edits on Sunset and Sunrise, I have started a discussion here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Please take note of Sockpuppet investigations/The Good Doctor Fry. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunset/sunrise edit warring (again)
Again, please stop making non consensual changes to Sunset and Sunrise. This edit warring serves no useful purpose to the project and may bring unpleasant consequences to the editors involved. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For the last time, I'm asking you politely to seek consensus before making any changes to Sunset or Sunrise. If you continue the present edit war I will have to propose a longer block to your account, as the only way to protect the articles. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Post Script: The issue of my non consensual editing ended when Alvesgaspar and other finally realized that the edits I had made for the previous 3 years were factually correct, and that the edits by Alvesgaspar and Spiel were factually incorrect and incomplete (every time). I consider it unfortunate that the people who were making false incorrect edits temporarily used politics and false accusations to get my account temporarily blocked. Because Alvesgaspar and Spiel could not understand the theory and mathematics accepted for the previous 100 years, the issue of why sunsets and sunrises are red was finally resolved when I found a high school level NASA article that they could understand without mathematics - a NASA article that confirmed that my previous 3 year of non consensual edits were correct. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I stood up for you
When I suggested that the Sunset Talk page is not the place to gripe about another editor, you took that as an invitation to write yet another diatribe about Alvesgaspar. That page is for discussions about the article content and nothing else. If you want to say your bit about another editor please write it on my talk page or his or yours where it won't clutter the article's talk page.

I must also say that the content of your post was disgraceful. Alvesgaspar does not have a personal vendetta against you, and he was not personally responsible for you getting blocked. I am tempted to call you a conspiracy theorist, but I realize you are, in a sense, the opposite. A conspiracy theorist interprets a single transgression against him as part of a larger plan carried out by many people. You, on the other hand, have been opposed and punished by a large group of editors and admins, and yet you blame the individual Alvesgaspar. No. Your account was blocked that second time, because the admins found you guilty of operating a Sock puppet. I don't know your side of that story, of course, but it was obvious to me that even if Wanbli-g53 was a separate individual, it was an acquaintance you rounded up solely for the purpose of evading the 3 revert rule. These are not the actions of a "Wiki-novice" as you call yourself, but clear bad-faith efforts to game the system. And all this occurred after I argued in your favor here, here and here. I will not be making that mistake again. Spiel496 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my mistakes in commenting in the discussion pages of the articles, as I did not know that these other forums existed (again I am a Wiki novice).  I did not realize that Spiel had written supportive things, as I had not read them and had not seen them.   I very much appreciate Spiel's ongoing efforts to make the sunrise and sunset articles accurate, factual, and useful;  I appreciate his ongoing patience; I appreciate his tenacity;  and I appreciate his support in keeping the articles factual, useful, and accessible to the general public.  Please see Spiel's talk page for further explanations for my errors and the processes that led to those errors.


 * I guess I need to learn how to use and to monitor some of these other "talk" functions within Wikipedia: My bad... 189.148.36.135 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up Report on the Non-Factual Allegations and Non-Factual Assertions Made Above:
I, The Good Doctor Fry, am no Wiki-expert nor am I skilled or knowledgeable of Wiki-politics or how to manipulate the Wiki-management machinery. Ironically, I do know spectroscopy, including the spectroscopy of sunlight's interactions with the earth's atmosphere. For 3 years, various Wiki-ites continued to incorrectly edit and insert false and incomplete information into the Sunrise and Sunset sections on the science and spectroscopy on sunlight, clouds, sunrises, sunset, and sky color.

Through the entire 3 year period, there was only one author who entered the correct and factual information explaining why the sky is blue, the clouds are white, and sunsets and sunrises are red. Throughout the 3 year period, various novice physicists et at continued to edit the Sunrise & Sunset color sections to devolve them to the level of poor incomplete high school text explanations. I offered sufficient theoretical formulae and references to landmark historical publications that have correctly described the sources of the colors for over a century. Further, these explanations have been the accepted standards within the spectroscopic community, while the general high school level physics community were unable to handle the higher order mathematics required to understand these phenomenae.

Various Wiki-editors and administrators continued to incorrectly edit the Sunrise and Sunset sections to create a succession of non-factual and substantively incomplete versions, which I would re-edit back to versions based upon scientifically accepted versions. Because the Wiki-editors and administrators could not understand nor manipulate higher order Bessel functions, they continued to revert to perverted incorrect explanations of how particles and aerosols scatter sunlight.

Unfortunately, even with technical subjects Wikipedia can often be more about politics and opinions and who knows how to manipulate the Wiki-systems, so, a number of false charges were made against me. The administrators and editors who continued to enter false information finally gave up, and accepted scientific reality when I found some NASA and NOAA articles that reported the same explanations that I had been writing and re.editing for 3 years in Wikipedia.

Since the Wiki editors and administrators could not understand the science nor mathematics nor spectroscopic events behind Sunset and Sunrise colors, they would only believe 100 years of accepted science after I found some dumbed-down NASA and NOAA explanations designed for educating the public.

I write these things for anyone who cares to read them to point out that it should not take 3 years and a lot of false charges made about me to get a simple Wiki article on Sunrise and Sunset colors to fit 100 years of accepted theory. Readers may note that the people who kept incorrectly editing the Sunrise and Sunset articles finally accepted the realities of how sunlight interacts with the earth's atmosphere - but not because they understood - instead, because I produced a high-school science text level publications from NASA and NOAA and I produced diagrams - pictures - to help the editors understand.

When the incorrect opinions of the general public are consistently substituted to replace clearly accurate accepted scientific facts, then Wikipedia falls far short of being useful - and instead Wikipedia devolves to lowest-common-denominator, incorrect, misleading, and Wiki-political machinations.

Why can't scientific articles be just about accepted science, based on good formulae, and 100 years of measurements? Must we fall back to dumbed-down references and pretty pictures to get less-than-knowledgeable editors and critics to stop entering the own personal opinions of false and substantially incomplete information into Wiki aricles?

Should Wikipedia be about following Wiki rules and Wiki politics, or should it be about publishing good accurate useful content? Unfortunately, sometimes not. In those cases, a few opinionated individuals can attack and disparage the people who offer good quality and useful information.

It took 3 years of my steady and persistent efforts to get the Sunrise and Sunset articles to finally reflect reality and facts versus various people's personal opinions. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunrise colors contributions
Good Doctor Fry,

Thanks for your participation in the sunrise article. In December 2011 I made a lot of structural and content improvements to the article, but I found the color section to be the hardest. The references that I could find were confusing and sometimes contradictory to each other.

I'm glad you're willing to assert your expert knowledge in this area to help clear up a confusing issue and improve everyone's understanding of science.

Since this is apparently a controversial issue, I'd also encourage you to pile on as many references as you possibly can to back up your case, since Wikipedia prohibits original research (even though I'm not doubting your decades of research!). I just want to make sure the facts win out, and references are your ammunition in that fight.

Thanks again. TWCarlson (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * TWCarlson:
 * I appreciate your heads up. If the issue about how colors are formed rears its ugly head again, please refer to the NOAA and NASA references as the ones that are scientifically correct and consistent with each other and are consistent with theory, observation, data, and mathematics.   Also refer critics to the diagrams I posted on the talk page for visual aids in seeing how the sun actually interacts with the earth's atmosphere, based on measurements and theory.


 * Really, when some people use references with incomplete and hence inaccurate high school level descriptions, there is no real substantive issue. The references I quote fit 100 years of scientific agreement and understanding by spectroscopists - Spectroscopists are the experts in this field, NOT physicists.   Since the mathematics and references and observations of the scattering phenomenon are laid out extensively in the talk section under "Colors",  there is enough mathematical proof, a reference to a landmark Mie scattering paper, and 2 separate reliable references from official US govt sources - creating an aggregate total of enough information to document the correct and scientifically accepted explanations and understandings.


 * References using general Physics texts are generally wrong on this topic - and unsupported by theory and observations, and unsupported by mathematics. If general physicists want to keep editing the article under the false premise of some irrational non-factual reference war - then I cannot stop them.


 * There really is NO CONTROVERSY over how sunrise and sunset colors are formed.


 * There ARE issues with how Wikipedia's political processes and rules are misused, abused, and mis-applied to occasionally create schlock content to meet the emotional needs of a few selfish demanding individuals - individuals who care more about ego and winning, than they care about quality or accuracy - which is an inherent problem with Wikipedia.


 * Wikipedia does not deal well with this problem, especially when talented and correct wiki-novices run into determined wiki-bullies and wiki-political masters like Alvegaspar.


 * I was temporarily banned once for correcting their errors - so, I don't see what else is possible. If Wikipedia's basic nature is to devolve the quality of its content to fit more-numerous low quality inaccurate popular references - the ones that the most people emotionally  like - choosing to ignore reality and ignore 100 years of spectroscopy and science, then Wikipedia and its editors get the low quality and inaccurate product that they and Wiki-bullies insist on having.


 * Sometimes the inmates really do take-over and run the asylum.


 * The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Although there is little controversy within the expert community about what causes these effects, there is controversy here at Wikipedia, because people are fighting about it — even if it's a silly fight based on myths instead of facts. That's the frustrating part about Wikipedia sometimes, which is that those with different viewpoints are allowed to share them and are even given the ability to add them directly, without consulting experts first.


 * However, the light at the end of the tunnel is that the most accurate content will eventually win out. It just might be a messy fight getting there. You've held your ground on this issue and that's admirable.


 * Your temporary ban was really just a way of making everyone stop for a while and cool down so that a reasonable discussion could continue. I think you would agree that reverting the same edit multiple times over a short period is somewhat bully-like and aggressive behavior. Even when fighting with someone who is wrong, shouting your side louder and louder just won't work. To be heard and listened to, you've got to stay calm.


 * And just to be clear, I accept the facts and the references that you include here, because I see you as an expert. But because some people don't care, you have to work harder to make sure your expert knowledge makes it into the article. Just try not to use brute force, becuase your facts will be poisoned by your behavior.


 * I hope you're able to continue to be patient and to wade through the muck that is the Wikipedia process. Your ability to remain calm and continue to assert your facts in a respectful way is what will ultimately get this article to the right place. TWCarlson (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully endorse TWCarlson calming voice and reasonable proposal. The problems in the past had little to do with the knowledge (or lack of it) of Wikipedia editors on the subject, and much with the form of the changes and the way they were forced into the article. Statements like «because Alvesgaspar and Spiel could not understand the theory and mathematics accepted for the previous 100 years» and «[…] correct wiki-novices run into determined wiki-bullies and wiki-political masters like Alvegaspar» don’t help solving the conflict or improving the article. TWCarlson is also right in that scientific truth usually prevails here as long as it is presented in a simple and attractive form and, very often, makes effective use of high quality illustrations. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, and long and accurate technical explanations have little chance of receiving the consensus of the community. Not because the community is ignorant but because those texts will be obscure to most. Making intricate subjects understandable to the common reader should be a basic requirement of all Wikipedia articles, as it is for teachers and science writers. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there anything substantial left to resolve? The Sunset and Sunrise articles have correctly included both Rayleigh and Mie Scattering descriptions. Both articles have the scientifically correct and internally consistent NOAA and NASA references.  If someone wants to go through and edit out the factually incorrect and factually incomplete general physics text references (deleting the general high school level references that conflict with the NOAA and NASA references), then I fully support that.  As long as the articles don't return to the incorrect descriptions of blue light being "absorbed", where "scattering" is the proper verb, then I'm on board.


 * I think good quality accurate diagrams showing blue light being Raleigh scattered in all directions to show how white daytime sunlight + air makes an apparent blue sky & apparent yellow sun, and a second diagram that shows white sunlight making a long-path-caused Rayleigh scattered reddish horizon at sunrise with subsequent Mie Scattering off clouds and aerosols to enhance peach, orange, and red colors in the sky up to 30 degree angles or so above the horizon.


 * I leave the descriptions of the higher order Bessel functions and Mie Scattering theoretical equations to Alvegaspar to deacribe in the talk pages, since he now understands them.The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm moving the conversation to Talk:Sunrise. I'll post some more comments there. Thanks. TWCarlson (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits of Maya calendar article
I reverted your edits to the Maya calendar article and explained why on the talk page. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maya_calendar#Reverting_edits_by_user:The_Good_Doctor_Fry. If you believe that I have done this in error, please discuss it there. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Senor cuete

Stop reverting / Owning
Stop reverting/owning Native American religion. I am attempting to clean up the mess you made of the refs. Take a break and wait for the changes. You've made a mess of this. - Corbie V  ☊ 23:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Native American religion, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Corbie V  ☊ 00:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, blogs are not WP:RS, and bare URLs are not a proper form of references. Other WP articles should be wikilinked, not put into inline refs. If you are going to keep editing here, you need to learn how to write in an encyclopedic manner and source things properly. READ the links above on how to do this because right now you're causing more harm than good. - Corbie V  ☊ 00:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Please do not delete key content, as you did to Native American religion, especially when that content describes cornerstone beliefs about and the importance of sacred sites and sacred objects.

Please do not delete key factual content about how traditional Native American religion has been under pressure from Christian churches and the US and Canadian governments. Readers cannot understand the religions, unless they also know the context of why Native American religion were forced underground for nearly a century.

I am not Wike-pedi-ite, so I don't know how to form references in ways that you like, so I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE you fixing the Wiki-formatting errors,  but please stop changing the essential content  and please stop changing the meanings. I have provided multiple verifiable reliable - frequently cited - references for the key principles that previous academic reports and government reports have been inadequate in characterizing the realities of traditional Native American religion for the past 150 years.

For example, you continue to delete the descriptions of how AIRFA was severely inadequate, and hence required 2 additional federal laws to be passed, and one Executive Order to address AIRFA's gross insufficiencies.

If you believe these items belong in a different section of the article, please stop   cutting out text that you do not personally like, and pasting the old text back in place.

Please, instead, follow Wiki-rules and make textual edits,  not gross cut & paste jobs.

I MUCH APPRECIATE your efforts to make the article meet Wiki-format rules. If you don't believe that the key items about the effects of Christian Church's and US & Canadian government oppression and persecution of Native American religion - then please create a section lower down in the article-  and guide the readers to "look below" for more details. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Native American religion. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Corbie V  ☊ 00:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

--

As noted above, I did provide US State legal journals as sources, which you deleted. I provided Washington Post reports on official government actions, which you deleted. I provided book references from respected publications by Native American elders, elders who personally met repeatedly with the Dalai Lama, and other prominent international religious leaders, who were invited to international conferences across Europe,    which you deleted.

Please, stick with facts: Your claims that I did not provide reliable references are simply false, as you deleted reliable references from 2 different official State legal reviews,  Washington Post reports, and prominent books by Native American spiritual leaders.

Again, please help fix the formats of references,  don't just delete them because the facts they present contradict your personal characterizations and personal beliefs about Native American religion.

Again, please stop cutting and pasting to revert articles back to your personal versions. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Raleigh mie fry1.jpg


Please maintain the image due to the reasons described in its Talk page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Raliegh mie fry3.jpg


Please maintain this image for the reasons listed on the image's talk page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Raliegh mie fry7.jpg


The file File:Raliegh mie fry7.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * orphaned image with no clear usability on project

Please maintain this image due to the technical and scientific reasons described on the image's Talk page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Raliegh mie fry6.jpg


Please maintain this image due to the reasons described on the image's Talk page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rayliegh mie fry1.jpg


Please maintain this image due to the factual scientific & technical reasons described on the image's talk page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Raliegh mie fry2.jpg


The file File:Raliegh mie fry2.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * orphaned image with no clear usability on project

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rayleigh mie fry1.jpg


The file File:Rayleigh mie fry1.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * orphaned image with no clear usability on project

Please maintain this image due to the factual scientific & technical reasons listed on the image's Talk page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rayleigh mie fry2.jpg


Please maintain the image, due to the scientific & technical factual reasons described in the image's Talk Page. The Good Doctor Fry (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Raleigh mie fry1.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raleigh mie fry1.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Raliegh mie fry3.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raliegh mie fry3.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Raliegh mie fry7.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raliegh mie fry7.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Raliegh mie fry6.jpg


The file File:Raliegh mie fry6.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * watermark makes image unusable in articles

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rayleigh mie fry2.jpg


The file File:Rayleigh mie fry2.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * watermark makes image unusable in articles

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rayleigh mie fry1.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rayleigh mie fry1.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)