User talk:Thirdright/Archive 3

RfC input needed
Hi. Your name was selected at random from Feedback Request Service as an editor that may be willing to comment on RfCs. There is  an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if you are so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

syobon action page
it doesnt need to be deleted, its just that a user vandalized it like crazy. look in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.191.151 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have rolled the page back to where it was a few days ago. Please take the time to provide reliable sources for the article though. I will likely propose its deletion in a community discussion in it's current form. Thanks for pointing out the history though, hopefully you and other editors can find sources and get the article up to Wikipedia standards. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MARIAN RICHERO
You're welcome, and I disagreed with the reason for speedying it in the past, so I wasn't at all interested in speedying it now. I didn't feel like taking it to AFD because it's not something that really interests me, but I readily voted in the AFD that someone else created. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mossad
i dont know how to talk to you on this, so i will try this way. I honestly dont care what you edit i did it to make a point  i know its your job to re-edit what people change. Im not mad at you im mad at the lies people put up here sometimes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.229.213 (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think? It can be easy to get upset when you find information in an article that is either inaccurate or appears to you to be inaccurate. As an encyclopedia, we contrain ourselves to material that is verifiable in reliable sources. If/when you come accross information that is inaccurate, go ahead and be bold and change it - IF you have and provide a reliable source for the new information. If you have a question about an article's content, discuss it on the article talk page. Thanks for your comments, but please don't continue to make disruptive edits. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to be a pain
Please understand. I saw Jeret Peterson on live TV last night. It is not intended as vandalism. I am sorry I lost my temper about it. But, please, it is an injustice to report someone dead when they are alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.204.112 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Iraq WMD Inspections, November 2002
Hi TGeairn, I posted a proposed addition to your page (copied below) and it was kicked-back as not verifiable or opinion-based. I was wondering what type of reference material would suffice? For instance, press reporting of the number of troops in Kuwait in Oct-Nov 2002? The biggest problem I see with wikipedia is that if you have to rely on what someone else has said or written, then you will at times miss new perspectives and historic realities. I'm not sure that I will find a reference document stating the below is true, but I think intuitively, most every non-partisan observer would agree with the comment. And, it provides valuable context...Saddam never would have allowed inspectors back on the ground without the imminent threat of military force. He hadn't since 1998 and there's no logical reason to believe that he would have in 2002...it was all about military pressure. Warm regards, Fred Smith / Fred.lyn

However, UN inspectors were only permitted to re-enter Iraq by Saddam in November 2002 due to the presence of several hundred thousand predominantly US and UK military troops, positioning in Kuwait near the Iraq border since the summer of 2002, preparing for non-compliance and a potential invasion. A strong case can be made that Saddam Hussein only complied with UN inspections, albeit in a limited manner, during this period due to the coercive effect of a large military presence on his border. Once removed, it is almost certain that Saddam's cooperation with future UN inspections would have ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred.lyn (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks for asking about the edit. As an encyclopedia, all material added to Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources. What you will want to look for regarding your additions above is one or more sources that present that information, and then use those sources to cite your addition. Given that it has been nearly a decade, it is likely that there are many reliable sources which discuss the UN inspections and the political environment at the time. It may take a little research to find sources; but that is why users on Wikipedia are editors, not authors.
 * I left a welcome message on your talk page with some useful links to getting started with sources. Please read through those and use the article talk pages (in this case Talk:Iraq and weapons of mass destruction) to discuss with other editors, who will often assist in finding sources.
 * Thanks again for asking here, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Deadweight
i am new to this, just trying to help out a friend who made a movie. its real, its correct (side note: dead weight was not a film in 1971, it was an episode title of Columbo.)would you please either change what i write to the format you prefer or write me back as to how to do so....i do not want my attempts to be deleted without a fair reason why you would delete something that is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinmetcher (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

constructive? how not? it is a new movie that was produced and distributed for sale. i believe it is constructive to add it here due to the fact that it is part of pop culture. please put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinmetcher (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for asking. Pages such as Deadweight are WP:Disambiguation pages, which are designed to assist readers in finding the article they are looking for. In the case of your additions, the material you are adding is not another article (and therefore is appropriate for a disambiguation page). You may wish to add the material to another article that is relevant, provided you have reliable sources that the information is notable. Thanks again, Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * i guess i just do not understand how this works....can i make a seperate page just for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinmetcher (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting my changes WHAT?
Why would you delete factual corrections to incorrect information. I made corrections and before you even verified with me you unilaterally deleted my work. To verify authenticity all you had to do was read the information that was presented. Allen didn't start with the Redskins until the early '70's. That's when he hired Dick Vermeil as HIS first special teams coach. Williams hired Marv Levy in 1969 when he took over the Eagles and hired Levy as the first special teams coach in the NFL. I was alive then (were you) and have personal knowledge of this history (do you?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.101.29 (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit summary, you removed material without an explanation and added additional unsourced material. Please provide reliable sources for information added to articles. Also, please constrain your comments to content and be civil. Thanks for asking (and yes, I was around and even had the opportunity to meet many of the individuals involved - but my personal recollections are irrelevant, only verifiable information belongs in an encyclopedia). Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nominations
Please strongly consider performing the suggested source searching at WP:BEFORE, section D, prior to nominating articles for deletion. It appears that you may be basing deletion nominations on the state of articles, rather than upon available sources at the following AfD discussions: Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Cam Archer
 * Articles for deletion/Masonville Place
 * I have responded at the pages for both AfDs. Thank you for your attention to these, but I respectfully disagree with your read of the sources found. To be clear, I did search for sources as recommended in the WP:BEFORE guideline. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmarcobitetto
Hi Tgealrn!

I've deleted the reply in my USER space, since I finally got a better understanding of what the USER space is actually for and some clarification on the use of the TALK space for discussions between collaborators (as far as my screen reading program allows me to read and understand). I will also delete the reply from my SANDBOX space since this page may be used only for test samples of articles (at least as far as I have been able to understand from what my screen reader program has read to me)...

Sorry, for any problems that I may have caused...  But, I've gotten conflicting information from several WIKI users that don't make sense...  I have even done a small essay that describes me, my education and my interests (this page was done in the general section of the reading room of WIKI-BOOKS because from what I was able to understand from my screen reader program reading the web-page to me (I am blind) the GENERAL section of the (Note that I am using all caps to indicate a link to a web-page) reading room was for general items such as introductions.  However, I received conflicting remarks such as follows from the following users:


 * It might fit better on Drmarcobitetto.--Collingwood (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Drmarcobitetto, you probably meant to put this in the general reading room, so you missed it by that much: this is the talk page of the general reading room. The reading room itself is |here.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, what and where shall I put the brief introduction..?

Thank you, --Drmarcobitetto 00:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! First, I apologize for the difficulty you have had getting started with things here. There may not be much that I can do to assist, but I will do the best I can.
 * It looks like you placed a biography on your User page. While a brief introduction is allowed on that page, its primary purpose is to communicate information about your participation on Wikipedia and related biographical material. The page tends to grow over time, as you begin to participate in various projects and groups.
 * From your comments, it looks like you are Dr. Bitetto. If you wish to have a brief autobiography on your user page, I recommend just putting together a short paragraph or two about yourself. Remember, the purpose is to introduce yourself as a part of the Wikipedia project; not to present a complete biography. I would also recommend that you write it in first person, and that you add " " (without quotes) to the top of the page. You can review WP:User pages for a much more detailed description of what User pages are for and what can and cannot appear on them.
 * Thank you for reaching out to me with your questions, and I hope I've helped. Please feel free to respond below with any other questions, or to drop me a comment on this page anytime. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Non-notable lists of people
FYI: I usually leave the following on the edit summary:

rv notability not established: no wiki page (red link) wp:listpeople wp:wtaf

and this on their talk page:

People should have a Wikipedia page in order to be on lists. There are exceptions. See wp:listpeople wp:wtaf

wp:listpeople wp:wtaf Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! As always, you bring me good stuff. I'll add those to my toolbelt. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Evolution
The claim is ipse dixit with no citation. Provide citation (relevant peer reviewed literature). NPOV verifiability. "Hypothesized to have" is scientifically accurate.

Jinx69 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I will attempt to address your statement and also explain my warning. First, the citation is at the end of the paragraph, the cited work is a compilation of numerous peer-reviewed articles and other works. Your addition of "Hypothesized to have" is not, however, why I left a warning for you.
 * You have repeatedly added the same material to the article, without discussion on the article talk page. Once you have boldly added to an article and someone has reverted your edit, the next thing to do is to discuss the change and reach consensus. See WP:BRD.
 * The specific warning I left was for your removal of over 164,000 chararcters from the article. That large-scale removal of content is unacceptable without a firm community consensus.
 * Thanks for asking, please review the book cited in the article - you may find it very interesting. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didnt mean to delete that large block of characters. Is a book a NPOV for a ipse dixit claim about the unobserved and unobservable past? Written history goes back 6,000 years ('recorded history' wiki). We have no documented evidence pre 6,000 years ago. Any claim before that is ipse dixit. "Hypothesized to have" is scientifically accurate. Then the relevant peer reviewed literature with radioisotopes can be employed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinx69 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have a particular judgement one way or another on the issue, but the important distinction here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we say what the sources say. There are numerous sources (the cited one contains literally hundreds of accepted expert statements) that say life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. We report what the sources say, and as you are aware, there are other articles which report on other sources that say life on Earth originated in a different manner. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hola (ethnic group)
Could you lock this page for at least a few hours? There's a tremendous edit war going on that I think you are aware of. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are very aware of it. Are you just waiting for another admin to do something? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User:WilliamH protected it. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!
Apparently I reverted one of your edits yesterday - I didn't even notice, I must have accidentally clicked the rollback button. Luckily an IP editor removed the unsourced content again. My apologies. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International System of Units
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International System of Units. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
 * Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
 * Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
 * Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
 * New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
 * Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Smart Grid Energy Research Center article
Hello.

The original article submitted was deleted due to copyright issues. A new article has been submitted at the suggested temporary page. I have followed the steps below - but have yet to receive a response it the article will be accepted or still needs work.

"If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Smart Grid Energy Research Center saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Tgeairn (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)"

I look forward to your response. Ucsglarc (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Union
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:European Union. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! On a related note, I also considered taking that site to the spam blacklist. At present though, it looks like blocking the editor is the less costly way to go. I did a quick search and didn't find anyone else adding it lately. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was an IP that added IIRC on the Huffington Post page - I'll defer to the judgement of whoever reviews the site for the blacklist, though. Keep it up! – Connormah (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge vandal
Thanks for the help!

I tried to rv a few times, but kept getting edit conflicts with the IP, until you stepped in. It appears they added their own (or a friend's) name to the infobox as a test/joke edit. They then broke the infobox, and tried to fix it and failed. The first edit was obviously Vandalism, but subsequent ones could have been a GF effort to undo. Either way, fixed. --Robert Keiden (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! I started to try to figure out what the editor's intention was, but then saw that the same IP was making a number of pure vandalism edits elsewhere. It was easiest to just revert all of it. Keep up the great work! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem
You should know better than to edit-war. Take it to the talk page or RFPP/AIV already. —Kerfuffler 04:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. To clarify, the first rv was content related, but my second was to revert vandalsim (flagged as such and warning issued). I'm sure it falls under WP:3RRNO #4 or #7 somewhere. I did probably feed the troll a bit tho. Anyway, cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer
Would you mind taking another look at James H. Fetzer and its talk page to see if this reversion by me is out of line with our policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources? Thanks! Location (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late response on this, but it looks like others have joined the discussion as well. The reasoning you and others have put forth seems sound to me, and the undue weight the passage adds would need very clean sourcing. I could see a very short inclusion based on the more reliable sources, but I'll leave this one to the existing discussion thread. Enjoy! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. It looks like the new editor dropped the issue anyway: . Location (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please use talk or templates
The example I posted under ad hominem attacks is NOT vandalism. Please stop calling it that simply because you disagree with it. If you don't believe it's an appropriate example, use the article's talk page so a consensus can be reached and/or add an appropriate template. Do NOT keep unilaterially reverting the edit! Because it is not vandalism, you are in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines by repeatedly removing it and I must ask you to stop this behavior immediately. Please use the article's talk section to present your argument. 173.10.123.113 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied at article talk page. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Please comment on Talk:Quantum leap
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quantum leap. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Bo Yang (disambiguation)
This is a disambiguation page (there's a clue in the title!), so it should not be labelled as either stub or uncategorised. Please take more care. Thanks. Pam D  07:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmph! Thanks for the note, now I'm worried that I missed others... Time to go comb my history. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

AWB rules of use
FYI, this edit violates AWB #4, which specifically mentions moving a stub tag. Please take care to avoid inconsequential edits. Cheers, Rd232 talk 14:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I apparently got a little agressive with Save and sparse with Skip. I will take care in future sessions. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandal
Can we do anything about this vandal?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.95.33.151 Shouldn't there be a level 4 warning at least now? Thanks! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor has only one edit today, which was reverted. It does look like a continuation of their earlier removal of content, I will keep an eye out. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced
Regarding the background for Hell in a Cell 2012, I was just summarizing what just occured at NoC since the events of the preceding pay-per-view set the table for the following one. Ranze (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The copy you added includes a number of statements about controversy, new titles, and likely upcoming unscheduled matches. Those type of statements should always be sourced. The previous event article may have sources to use. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

hey
Explain why my edit was not constructive --Plaentain (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The administrators' noticeboard is for "posting information and issues that affect administrators.". If you have a specific concern that has not been resolved through alternate means, then feel free to ask at the noticeboard. Your edit did not give any context or reason for why it was information that affects administrators. The Teahouse is one venue designed for engaging with other editors, you may want to check it out. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

 * Thanks, and thank you for all the good work you so patiently do too. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lower Assam
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lower Assam. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greek landing at Smyrna
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greek landing at Smyrna. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Random access
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Random access. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hello! To be clear, I did not nominate the article for deletion. It was nominated by another editor, and once nominated it must go through the process at WP:AfD. The deletion notice should not be removed until the discussion is complete. The notice informs other editors about the discussion and provides links to the discussion and relevant pages. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

New editor you just reverted
Thanks for that. You might want to take a look at what I reverted at Religious belief. --Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note... I tend to triple-check myself whenever wading into this subject area, particularly trying not to bite new editors. Your comments on the editor's talk page were right on point. It looks like they are trying to contribute positively to the project, so hopefully a little direction is all that's neeeded. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chetniks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chetniks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tgeairn!
Could you explain me the reason that you removed the link,please? I would be interested in hearing that. The interview was taken from Lautaro Formica and it totally contributes to the information about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.4.172 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thank you for asking. Our content guidelines for external links discourage the addition of links to blogs. If the interview was done by a recognized authority in the field and published in a reliable source, then you might want to consider using the reliable source as a reference in the article. Note that blogs are almost never reliable sources, so to include the interview as a citation in the article you would want to find where it was published in a source that meets the guidelines for reliable sources.
 * Thanks again for asking. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Although,you have to judge by the content not by the name blog. All blogs aren't the same,all sites aren't the same.You know very well that many sites aren't reliable. What is reliable or not it is based on the content,exclusively.When Lautaro Formica gave me the interview,isn't it crazy not be allowed to publish it on his wikipedia page? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.4.172 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that all blogs are not equal, and there is an exception to the external links guideline on blogs:"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"


 * Unfortunately, it does not appear that this blog meets that limited exception. Again, thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Carina Round
Hey, she put us up to it on her Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/carinaround?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.17.147 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ceviche
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ceviche. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited COSHH, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Benzol and Spray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Template correction request
Hello! I earlier made an edit request for Template:WikiProject Death, which was answered and completed by. Unfortunately, my requested changes broke the template for the majority of uses. I have placed corrected code at the edit request, but I fear that Zanimum may be offline now.

Are you willing to take a look at my correction and apply it? I would wait for the request to get answered normally, but this changed a large number of pages. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - jc37 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hate it when I manage to goof up a couple thousand articles at once. ;) --Tgeairn (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Becky Gulsvig
Please note that the recent additions to this article were deliberate factual errors by an IP-hopper we are tracking at Long-term abuse/Broadway Hoaxer. Elizium23 (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I will keep a watch. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Edits
Hello TGeairn,

Please explain why you removed an edit I made to the "Religious Belief" page. I added a reason for adherence to religious belief titled "Facts of History". What did you find objectionable?

Thanks,

Ace PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace PhD (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thanks for asking. I removed the passage you added as it was unsourced and appeared to be original research. Material added to articles should be reliably sourced and verifiable. I noticed that other portions of that article are similarly unsourced, and I tagged the section to reflect that. Thanks again, and please feel free to ask further questions here or at the article's talk page. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am a bit perplexed as to how you would think it is original research. It is a truth that applies to 100% of practicing Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Jews celebrate the Passover. The Passover is a memorial of an event that they believe happened in history. It may or may not have actually happened, but they certainly believe it did. Christians celebrate Christmas. Christmas is, to Christians, an event that occurred around the year zero AD that is called the Incarnation. St. Paul, in the Bible, says that the religion of Christianity stands or falls on the Resurrection of Jesus as an historical event around the year 30 AD. There is not a single person who is truly a Christian who does not believe that that happened in history. It may not have happened, but all Christians believe it happened. What kind of sources are you looking for? Passover, Christmas, and Easter are celebrated every year. Does one really need a source for that? Do you really think this is original research?

Thanks,

Ace PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace PhD (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the majority of your evaluation above, the passage you added to the article made several statements as "fact" but did not provide sources for those facts.
 * You said "Many religions, in particular Judaism and Christianity, are rooted in historical events such as the Exodus from Egypt and the Resurrection of Jesus." It might be more accurate to say "...are rooted in the belief in historical events...", and there are likely an abundance of sources for that.
 * "Believers adhere to the tenents of these faiths because they believe that certain events actually happened in history and that those events prove the validity of their faith." I think you might have some difficulty sourcing this statement, as it brings up the whole question of "what is faith?". For example, many Christians don't believe the historical accuracy of the Genesis narrative, but that doesn't prevent them from being Christians.
 * "If such events are proven to be false, then those who adhere to their religion because of certain facts would cease to practice that religion." Again, this would need a reliable source. There are doubtless many practitioners of different faiths who have no need for historical accuracy in the narrative.
 * "This type of belief is similar to a scientist who holds to a theory that explains all the evidence he has seen to date. If new experiments show results that conflict with what his theory hypothesizes, then he should reject his previously held theory and search for a new one." This may not be an accurate comparison, based on the term "evidence".
 * "Contrary to what non-believers think, this is the most predominant reason behind belief in Christianity..." This is original research without a source. I don't know if such a source exists, but without one the passage is not encyclopedic.
 * I hope this helps. I imagine that with a rewrite to remove some of the more difficult to verify claims, you could find sources for the others and still get the overall message across. You may want to take your proposed inclusion to the article talk page and ask others there to assist with sourcing as well.
 * I very much appreciate your taking time to develop this. That article could really use some work by someone(s) willing to do the work and bring it up to the quality of some of our other articles. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tgeairn,

Thanks for your reply. I suppose your points above really should have led you to edit my comments rather than throw them out altogether. You recognize that this article needs a lot of work. Wouldn't you agree that my edit at least improved it? If so, why cut it and and leave it worse just because the edit was not perfect? Why not edit it and make it even better?
 * Your first point is a well taken simple edit.
 * Your second point fails to distinguish between what are called the Dogmas of the faith and passages of the Bible. The historical accuracy of genesis, while believed by some Christians, is, even to them, not a fundamental tenant of the faith.  The Nicean Creed, which is believed by all Christians, mentions just a few historical events: the Incarnation and the Resurrection being the main two, which is why we celebrate Christmas and Easter.  We don't celebrate a day for the creation of the universe in 7 days.  Belief in certain critical events as history is indeed a reason for belief; that's not the same as belief in the historical accuracy of an entire book called the Bible, and my comments clearly did not say the latter.  Perhaps a longer edit making this clarification would be an improvement.  I'll make that change and resubmit.
 * Your third point implies that under a title "reasons for religious belief" that only reasons that 100% of all believers have can be included. It may be true that some Jews and Christians do not believe the fundamental tenants of their faiths, but then, some do.  All I need is the fact that some do for my edit to be accurate.  The fact that not all do is irrelevant.  Not all believers believe for emotional reasons, yet you left the "emotional high" as a legitimate reason for belief.
 * Your fourth point about my comparing religious faith to a scientific theory is only valid to the extent that history cannot be proven in the same way that the laws of physics can be. But that's an obvious difference between historical analysis and scientific analysis.  Historical analysis is still scientific, it's just not physics -- the use of archaeology, laboratory analysis and identification, DNA testing, etc. all seek to obtain evidence.
 * Your fifth point is that I need to site some source for claiming that belief in the Dogmas of the faith is the primary reason why people hold that faith. Actually, I was being generous.  In fact, it isn't the primary reason, it is, by definition, the only reason.  That is what the Christian faith is.  If you don't believe in the Dogmas you are, by definition, not a Christian.  One may claim to be a Christian and not believe in the Dogmas, but that doesn't mean that one is.  Someone may claim to be your child but that doesn't mean they are.  There is a definition as to whom your child is: someone whom you have sired.  Likewise, there is a definition as to who is a Christian: someone who believes in the tenants of Christianity.  If you think a citation would improve this, I will cite the Apostles Creed and the Nicean Creed.

I will be happy to make those changes and clarifications and resubmit the edit.

Ace PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace PhD (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blackwater Baghdad shootings
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Blackwater Baghdad shootings. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Negative real interest rates on US public debt
Regarding, , , and why do you think those edits were "cut/paste of blog referenced original research"? They are in no way cut/pastes of even a few words, and they conform to the many sources being discussed at Talk:United States public debt including Lawrence Summers writing for Reuters. This is a very important aspect of the US debt, which you can see by that talk page discussion, and it deserves to be included.

is particularly confusing because you also undid several formatting changes to conform to the manual of style and the addition of graph illustrations from government sources. If there is something which made you think that the edits were cut/paste or OR, I'm sorry, but they aren't. I don't mind leaving the summary of negative real interest out of the articles while they are being discussed at that talk page, but I do intend to replace those formatting changes unless there is a good reason not to. Paum89 (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thank you for asking here. If I removed any formatting changes, it was unintentional and I apologize. My intention was to remove the passage which is sourced to a blog post. By cut/paste, I meant that you included the same passage into multiple articles. The logic of the statement seems sound to me, but we need reliable sources and the blog doesn't meet that criteria. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I understand what you mean now, and I agree to leave the paragraph on negative real interest rates out of all five of the articles where I added the same text until the talk page discussion has gone on for at least a few days. If and when I replace it, I'll use the Summers source from Reuters (and probably the US Treasury source quoted in the last of the five excerpts on that talk page discussion) instead of Mark Thoma's blog. Sorry to have bothered you about this. Paum89 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No problems at all, thanks for the quick responses. I agree, the Reuters source would be the better bet. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 44 (U.S. series)
Hey Tgeairn, you recently proposed deleting the Now 44 article. I think I have now provided enough articles that state it is coming out on November 6th. If that wasn't the reason for your proposal then I will be happy to revisit the topic. Also if it is satisfactory, then could you take down the proposal? I've never created an article and this was my first one, so I appreciate your input. Jashack (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I removed the PROD, as the sources you added moved the article significantly in the direction of notability. Please be sure to examine WP:NALBUMS (particularly the section on unreleased material) when considering new articles about upcoming albums: "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label."


 * The Now 44 article is marginally outside of those parameters, but I conceed that there will likely be additional coverage in the next couple weeks.
 * Thank you very much for your contributions, and I look forward to working together with you on the Wikipedia project. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Meanie

 * ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzybuns (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Levomefolic acid
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Levomefolic acid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Question on dealing with vandalism
Hi. I just stumbled across the trouble happening on the Star Wars Episode VII article, and I noticed that you had the problem well in hand (though it is odd to see a page changing every time you go back to it). I had intended to see if I could deal with it myself, but I actually realised that I wasn't quite sure how to go about reporting such a problem. Just wondering if you can offer any advice for the future.

Cheers, HiddenViper13 01:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiddenViper13 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello, and thanks for asking. The best place to start is how to respond to vandalism. I frequently use automated tools, such as Huggle, to watch for recent changes to a selected list of articles. The tools let me more rapdily react when needed, but the basics are the same. Ultimately, vandalism may end up being reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism, where project admins will deal with things. Please note that before using that page, you will want to read and understand Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic toll collection
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic toll collection. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Jasmine Villegas
Please? I work for Gabriella Mosci and I'm updating Jasmines wikipedia as per her new bio, please see her website for reference. I'm also using the photo that Gabi has asked me to post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSWalti (talk • contribs) 03:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please? I'm trying to update Jas wikipedia per Gabriella Mosci, but several people keep changing it. JSWalti (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello! Unfortunately, the material you have added appears to be unsourced and not written from a neutral point of view. I have placed a few links on your talk page to explain this more fully. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I dont' understand who I should 'source' it with? The other stuff on there was more like gossip.JSWalti (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the existing material could also use some work. What you will want to find are third-party reliable sources, and then use the material in those sources to develop the article. You will need to reference the sources, the easiest way is to include " " around a url for the content. See WP:Citing sources for much more on how to cite. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Some of the things currently in there are incorrect. I do have permissions to use copyrighted information (her bio) and will handle it accordingly. JSWalti (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I suggest starting with small modifications to the article, providing sources and removing unsourced inaccuracies. Given that you are close to the subject of the article, please also see WP:COI. There are some good guidelines there on how to avoid problems editing articles you are "close" to. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a note, I've left JSWalti a much stronger message with reference to WP:COI, and I've added the article to my watchlist. I am a strong supporter of allowing people w/COIs to edit articles, so long as they follow all of our other policies. This case, those, is a one where the COI is clearly preventing proper editing. From this point forward, JSWalti really should only be using the article talk page, not editing directly. JSWalti just made 3 edits to the article; I don't know if they are appropriate, but they don't seem to be obvious copyvios or the like, so I won't revert them, but feel free to do so if there are problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and another set of eyes. I've watchlisted as well. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

TYVM
Thanks for fixing my page, much appreciated! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanx
For the revert of the user's  obsession with beets.--  Theda  01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Houla massacre
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Houla massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)