User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive to December 2008

April 2008
You may be interested in Requests_for_comment/Bardcom. Tb (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sympathetic and cynical. I have no interest in pointless pseudo-litigation of the make-believe variety. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I said my piece and left. I have got too much done in the last few weeks to get caught up in this sort of thing. -- Secisek (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah
I love your comment about enjoying oneself on W. Too many in this 'community' see themselves as demi-gods, or perhaps even THE God. Cheers!!! Albanman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanman (talk • contribs) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers?
Wassupwiththe__"Cheers!"? =D...Honestly, I really am curious.  the_ed17  02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'cause its polite ... 'cause its friendly...reminds me and other editors that Wikipedia is not a life or death game. It's just fun. So...Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I agree completely it's not life or death! But I also feel like I've been cheated when people suck the fun out by making it such. Tb (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I had my Wiki-happiness sucked out of me by a Wiki-dementor in Jan. I went on a month long break over Feb 'cause of it. Never again will I allow Wikipedia to become anything but a fun hobby. If you feel like some editor is sucking the fun out then just chant the mantra 'two million articles two million articles two million articles'. Suddenly, the spell is broken. You realize there are nooks and crannies everywhere. Articles free of Wiki-drama and Wiki-stress. That is why I say. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree with you. I followed your lead and stopped editing one of my favorite articles for the same reason. I enjoy learning new things and filling in the gaps in my knowledge. When it stops being enjoyable, I stop. I'm at an age and in a condition where I'm beyond competitiveness. I did that for a living and I don't need it anymore. FAs, GAs, etc., mean nothing to me. My own satisfaction is what counts now. It helps to have some cordial interaction with other editors without the game playing. Back to Cheers, I guess it's what was called a complimentary close in more formal times when people wrote real letters to each other that started with a salutation, etc. I prefer Best wishes, but it means the same thing. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'complimentary close'...that was the phrase I was looking for. The opposite of a salutation. I used 'take care' for a long time. 'Cheers' is short and doesn't suggest seriousness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (Re: Clariosophic) =D That's why I work mainly in the Shannara universe. Once or twice last month I went to the featured article and almost completely rewrote their into's, but my edits were apparently good, so no one said anything......And now, Wassup, you've got me thinking about adding "Cheers" or something to MY signature! =)  the_ed17  21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Unitarians and Facundo
Thanks for that, Wassup! I'm kind of nibbling away at the copyedit, and commented that bit since, while I didn't want to remove it, I couldn't immediately think of a way to work it into the text without disrupting the flow. I was intending to return after thinking it over, but your solution is more elegant anyway... so cheers ;) EyeSerene talk 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just trying to stop a conspiracy theory from starting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... if I was that way inclined, it would make an interesting one. Shame April 1st has come and gone! EyeSerene talk 16:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of Comparison of church management software
I do not believe that this page qualifies under WP:CSD, as from what I remember about this page it was not blatant enough to qualify. Furthmore most of the arguments in the "debate" seemed to center around OTHERSTUFF or easily correctable issues WP:OR. I am therefore requesting that you undelete the article, and restart the afd. Thank you for you time. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 01:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try deletion review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Living dinosaurs
I don't think the article Living dinosaurs qualified for a speedy delete. The WP:SPEEDY policy page says that the G1 criteria (which you cited) is for:

"Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases."

I doubt that this article will survive AfD, but that's not a reason for a speedy delete. Can you please restore the article so that the AfD process can continue? Thanks. — BradV 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops! You beat me. I think it is possible that this could survive AFD. There have been entire books speculating about living dinosaurs. I'm sure the article needed lots of cleanup, buts that's not a reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 02:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. This isn't an instance of WP:SNOW, it's an instance of WP:STEAM. — BradV 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Are you sure this article really counted as "patent nonsense"? Speculation about living dinosaurs is very common in cryptozoological circles and creationist circles, and it's possible to write about this subject in a detached, objective manner. Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Try deletion review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * done. Zagalejo^^^ 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And reported to ANI. — BradV 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Church management software deletion
I could support you when you deleted comparison of church management software as spam. However to delete the main church management software article as spam also is really, really a long stretch of my imagination! Unlike the comparison article, there were no specific products linked to, or even named, in the main article. As such it would appear that no products are being promoted at all. The page simply describes the functions common to a specific class of software, much like our wiki page. Please reconsider your deletion. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw a brochure. Speedy delete is appropriate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I saw a brochure" - for what? "Cheers" - to a deletion that brings no cheer to anyone except yourself, perhaps. Pegasus &laquo;C&brvbar;T&raquo; 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The President
No longer needs the (novel) after it with the new title. It should just be El Señor Presidente. Yomangani talk 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is non-English, I think it advisable to say it is a novel. Anyway, it has multiple redirects already including all variations upon the theme including El Señor Presidente and The President (novel). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems strange reasoning. We don't normally explain articles in their titles, even if they aren't in English - La maja desnuda, Notre Dame de Paris, La Bête humaine, Le Père Goriot, ¿Por qué no te callas? etc. etc. I can't think who that would assist. Yomangani talk 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, people who don't speak Spanish. I sense that we are going to enter the downward death spiral of a name debate. I hate name debates :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Wassup, Wassup? (Sorry, couldn't resist.) I know you've voiced concerns in the past about a particular suspected sockpuppet, but what do you think of this? I think I make a valid case. I wouldn't have got involved, but dude made it personal. Any suggestions, especially since you're an admin and all, would be much appreciated. Should this be brought to Suspected sock puppets? María ( habla con migo ) 18:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be brought as a sockpuppet case. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone's already listed it at Checkuser (the original blocking admin!), so I guess we'll just see what happens? Phew. María ( habla  con migo ) 19:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did it too! Oh well. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi wassaup you know me from helping out with MMM, anyway today Jbmurrays essay was vandalised by two users: User:Southern Beau and User:Virginia fried chicken, since one vandalised right after the other, I suspected them of being the same person and so in other to check that and also if they had vandalised other pages, I had a look at their edit histories which despite being quite small showed a curious similarity. So by now I was pretty sure they were the same person.

I openned the history of some of the pages they had edited and while navigating thruh the list of edits I saw a name that was quite familiar although I coulnt rember from where exactly: User:P.wormer and then it occured to me, I had seen that name over at citizendiums forums, he's a regular over there (although I dont participate there I read their forums occasionally) and a few days ago Murray made a post to their blog: [] and Wormer was one of the people who participated in the discussion.I checked other articles edited by both of the accounts I meantioned above and most of them were at some point edited by Wormer if not started by himself. By now I was really starting to suspect that all tree were the same person. If you read Wormers post at the blog you can see that hes a frustrated ex-wikipedian.

I belive he has been using those two accounts to insert subtle errors into articles he had worked in the past or authored himself. One exmaple of this is: Eckart conditions which was written by him, you can see by looking at the history that user:Southern Beau made an edit saying it was minor corrections but which changed the content of the article subtly. Now I'm not mathematician so I had no way to know if the edit was legit or not so I decided to check citizendium( I figured wormer would've copied his article overthere) and surprise surprise, the article was there also written by wormer, and the part that was changed by user:Southern Beau was there in its original form meaning that the change to the wp article was indeed vandalism. Here are some exemples that were edited by all three:  and by two:. I think he did not like the post Murray made at the blog, saying that WP had higher standards than CZ and so he vandalised the essay. I wasn't sure on how to go about this so I decided to tell you being and admin and all. Can you investigate? (sorry for the long post) Acer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. I'll open up a check user request on this. Thanks for the detailed info. Note thought that not much can really be done. Blocking an account doesn't really do much. Malicious sockpuppets just create new accounts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put in a check user request. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thx for looking into it. I found the coincidences abit striking to be just that... But the checkuser should clarify this Acer (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your RfA comment
Hi Wassup! I hope it's OK to respond here (I'll link to this reply from my RfA page). You cited my apparent lack of experience in AfD as the reason for your oppose, with only five deletion debates. If you check my contributions going back for 12 months or so, you'll find I was much more active over at AfD than I have been recently - the GA sweep and the FA-Team has monopolised my time since the end of last year. For example, this diff is a fair sample of both my AfD and anti-vandal contribs (and I could have picked plenty of others!). I hope this helps to address your concerns. All the best, EyeSerene talk 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't looked at your RfA debate since my oppose. I'll check it out again...especially in light of your comments. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. You are going to make admin no problem! I don't feel guilty in retaining my oppose. As I mentioned at the RfA, we really have had good productive editors chased away by the Wiki lunatics within days of being made an admin. Your edit history makes me think that you might be a bit naive to this. I think once you become an admin, you'll look back at my comment as being prescient :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Hi there!

Thanks for offering to review the GA Nom!

-- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re my mixup
Lol - I should have checked. It's been a long day... :P EyeSerene talk 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFA request
You had requested El Senor Presidente for the main page on April 16th as it is the next available slot. However, I wanted to point out that Virginia Tech massacre has already been requested for that date as it is the one-year anniversary of the event and there is considerable support for that nomination. Can I ask that you pick a different date? Thanks Ronnotel (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Turns out that my request is null. So don't worry about 16 April. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

United States
Please discuss first before unprotecting this. It was easily either the #1 or #2 (behind George W. Bush) most vandalized article on Wikipedia before the blessed invention of permanent semiprotection, and every time someone has come along with the noble intention of reopening it back to anonymous editing, it has been very quickly swamped with vandalism. It's an experiment that cannot work. --Golbez (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain but it has been page protected since Nov 2007. The ethos of Wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia that can be edited by everyone. Permanently protecting the U.S. page is somewhat ironic. I'd leave it open for a day or two and see what happens. Remember that page protection is not a prophylactic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The top vandalized articles have been, if not by law, then by practice, semiprotected to save the sanity of us admins who foolishly keep them on our watchlists. Wikipedia can be edited by everyone, yes - but that is not the point of Wikipedia. The point of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia; open editing is merely the method of Wikipedia, and on these few articles, the risk (and certainty) of frequent vandalism far outweighs the benefit of anonymous editing. A couple of days is quite long; you could leave it open for 12 hours and already see a half dozen anon/newaccount vandalisms. (Which, considering that the article takes over 30 seconds to load, just compounds the issue further - we'd be losing that much extra time just seeing if an edit IS vandalism)


 * My point is - if you're going to unprotect an article like that, at least warn us on the talk page first. :P Perhaps we can talk you out of it. --Golbez (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm very willing to reverse myself...so I'm easily talked out of something :-) Deletion/inclusion, IP editors / no IP editors, censorship of certain content / no censorship of certain content, and fiction / no fiction are some the big Wikiepdia battle lines. I'm certain that will always be so. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm a big fan of IP editors, I know that while ~90% of vandalisms come from them, 90% of their edits are valid. (86% of statistics are made up on the spot) But semi-protection of certain articles has become a necessary fact of life. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, pragmatism on wikipedia is probably the best way to go! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter
(I posted this on Feydey's talk page, but thought you may have some good input, as well.) Since Kevin has taken a hiatus and his bot is usually the one to send notices for The Novels WikiProject Newsletter out, do we have another course of action? Do you know of another user with a bot that can send it out to the members? Since it's nearly mid-April, I thought we should try to get something out, especially if we want to remind people that we've got a few things that are changing and/or updating. María ( habla con migo ) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit to being bot-ignorant. I'd try first. It is a good idea. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do, thanks muchly. María ( habla con migo ) 17:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you already knew this, but...
The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

HP MfD
My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No stress here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

???
What am I doing? I'm confused. Scholars say Shakespeare probably used the Geneva Bible, not the AV (AV=KJV ??) Wrad (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was confused by your syntax. I though your parathentical comment was referencing the AV. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray
I suggest you read this before you start accusing me of talking to someone after they asked me to stop. His actions are clearly inappropriate and are an abuse of the talk page feature. Talk pages are not there to express lack of good faith upon edits in a condescending manner. Neither are feature article discussion pages there to say such things as "basta" about other people here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Basta doesn't mean what you think it means... Wrad (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ottava (and this really is my last word):
 * I used Cirt's talk page to alert him to a possible context for an edit that might otherwise appear puzzling. (He is the major contributor to Getting It: The psychology of est and the person who has nominated it to FAC.)  I think that is an appropriate use of the page.
 * I am sorry if you feel that "Basta!" (which, as you are aware judging from your own user page, simply means "Enough!") is insulting. I admit that I was at that point somewhat frustrated, for reasons that should be apparent from a reading both of the FAC review and of my talk page.  I am happy to withdraw that wording, but not the sentiment--which is that I feel it would be more productive if I were to walk away; my sense it that you have that same feeling, too.
 * Again, all the best! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hey wassup, thanks for the heads up. Too bad the other account was too old to check, but I may have found a way around this problem: User talk:86.81.145.23 check the first revision of that page. So perhaps this can be checked against the newer accounts? Acer (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Moonrise (Warriors)
No, I'm not planning to bring Moonrise (Warriors) to FA for a while. I still need to develop the article a bit more. But thanks for offering to apply for a peer review - I'll need it sometime. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobel prize-winning
Here is a prior discussion that is suitable. The first sentence should be a general declarative sentence of who the subject is. indopug (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly the Reese Witherspoon argument does not follow WP:LEAD] or [[Wikipedia:The perfect article. Note: "starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail. " Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead as a whole is not in question here, only the first sentence is. The first sentence should be a general declarative sentence to tell a reader who the subject is. If you were to include X award-winning, you are highlighting one of the subject's achievements and thus influencing the POV of the reader. Further examples, "Halle Berry is an American Razzie award-winning actress" or "Adolf Hitler is a mass-murdering German politician". indopug (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the problem? I think you are misunderstanding or misinterpreting WP:NPOV. Neutral POV is not a policy to make nice or to smooth out achievements. With WP:Notable, Wikipedia articles must explicitly state why the subject is notable. A Nobel prize or an Academy award is both a fact and a touchstone of notability. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with wassup on this one. Saying that he won a Nobel is not POV, its factual and establishes notability. Acer (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But the notability is established anyway as one reads on (in the lead itself). From WP:NPOV, "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present". Halle Berry could either be "Academy award-winning" or "Razzie award-winning"—they are both facts; which one of those is going to start the article? Notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The fact that he has a Wikipedia article makes him notable. "With WP:Notable, Wikipedia articles must explicitly state why the subject is notable." - could you point where this is to me? indopug (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Georgette Heyer
Thanks for the review on Georgette Heyer. I was just digging in to address your suggestions when I saw that you'd re-reviewed (so thanks for that too). I will definitely be keeping your comments in mind as I get the article ready for an FA nom. I appreciate your time! Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I enjoyed reading about her. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye
Thanks for the welcome back. :) IvoShandor (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mammal evolution
Hello! Thanks for your advice. In fact, I am proposing both this article and its Catalan version for featured article status. I didn't write the English article, but I'd like to see it reach FA status, so I'm going to work hard on that lead. Maybe 3-4 paragraphs will suffice, but it will be hard to summarise 81 kilobytes in just a few paragraphs. Anyways, I'll have a go at it. Thanks again for your help! Leptictidium (mammal talk!) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...
 Thank you... ...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! I appreciate the sentiment behind your objections, and I'll expect a pint if when time proves you wrong ;) EyeSerene talk 17:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Edmund the Martyr
User:EdChampion has just returned, saying he's not sure how to proceed with the possible mediation/arbitration/whatever. I was wondering whether you might consider it politic to perhaps remove the archiving templates so the discussion can be reengaged, as it were. I don't know if that's offically done, of course, but in this case maybe we can ignore a rule or two. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No trouble. I'll remove the templates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

William
Hiya, I'm thinkin' it's about time to ping Awadewit, if she's willing. Time for a bit more feedback for the lowly editors. --Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a gentle request! I think you will be getting a visit from Awadewit if she has the time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Geneva
Did you notice a distinct pro-Geneva slant? I sure did. -- Secisek (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hello Wassupwestcoast! Just wanted to say many thanks for your continuing support on The General in his Labyrinth article. It would not have reached FA status without your help (literally...you nominated it for GA and requested it to be peer reviewed)! THank you so much! Carlaty (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Though you and your classmates did 99.99% of the work. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?
Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your frank comments about Wikipedia
I've edited Wiki articles for just over a year. Almost all of No free lunch in search and optimization, one of the 15 GA's in computer science, is my work. The exercise was very good for me. Explaining my research area as simply as I could led me to some new and important insights.

I recently made the mistake of tangling with the intelligent design WikiProject. The members I've dealt with are thoroughly familiar with Wiki policy. They ignore it in their own editing, and use it as a cudgel in response to editing they dislike. They know just what the limits are, and they take turns testing them. That way, no individual is exposed to much risk of sanctions from the Wiki community. They just keep coming and coming and coming with biased syntheses of "the truth" from inadequate sources.

The irony is that I am an outspoken critic of intelligent design. I have a peer-reviewed chapter criticizing ID to appear in an edited volume this June. Having seen many ID advocates refer to "Wickedpedia," I hoped that editors would go to great lengths to exhibit fairness. But "Wickedpedia" is in fact living up to its name. The mean-spirited attacks on ID proponents in their biographies, in wanton violation of WP:BLP, are particularly disheartening.

A particular editor who fought with me over policy on biographies of living persons and lost has turned to deleting balanced discussions of topics he considers ID in other articles I have edited. He evidently believes that the encyclopedia promotes pseudoscience by discussing it. He does not deign to enter into discussion on the talk pages, but comments in the revision histories:


 * Paring this down per WP:NPOV. Size and credulousness of section gave undue weight to ID proponents views.
 * Restoring last version without undue weight issues.
 * NPOVing this article. Promoting ID via this "labs" article is a not going to fly. What a POV mess.
 * Restoring accurate, neutral version.

The "credulous" section passed GA review. Most of the attention "no free lunch" gets these days is in connection with intelligent design, because a leading ID proponent appropriated the term for the title of one of his books. That proponent and a creationist research collaborator are subjects in the controversial documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which was just released on 1100 screens. So it is very important to discuss what the subject of the article does and does not have to do with ID. Most of the section was descriptive, and the rest critical. As for "promoting ID" in the other article, the deleted section treated the question of whether a particular notion was ID in disguise. It contained the opinion of one ID opponent that it was not ID, and another ID opponent that it was ID. I have posted on the talk page of the offending editor a request to engage in discussion, but he has ignored it. You had posted there, and that's what brought me here.

I have left out details because I do not want you to act. This is sheer chaos, not silliness. You say, "Be a WikiSloth. Spend time with your family. Write real papers and real articles in the real world. On Wikipedia, enjoy yourself." I'm glad for what I gained in working on the GA, but I'm sorry that I contributed to "Wickedpedia." Now that I have been lawyered so much, and have responded with so much lawyering, I know of departures from Wiki policy in my GA that no one else is likely to catch. I am going to police myself. Then I am going to spend more time with my lady friend. And I am going to give more time to writing real papers and real articles in the real world. But this hijacked ship is not my idea of a place to have fun in my spare time. --Tom English ThomHImself (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is very strange. Sometimes it is down right hostile: I think you understand the situation well now. Treat this has a hobby...if you aren't getting a lot more pleasure than grief then either find a more fun part of Wikipedia or re-enter the Real World. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review of The God Delusion
Hi, and thanks for your review of the God Delusion. I have implemented some already, and reacted to some of the points I don't agree with. Your further input on whether it is going in the right direction as well as reasons if I might be mistaken to dismiss some of the advice would be very welcome.

Talk:The_God_Delusion

Naturally, any further comments as to what would improve the article would be very welcome. Thanks again for your review, Merzul (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I almost forgot about this review. Yes, I will take a look. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Laramie Project
Hi there Wassupwestcoast, I was just wondering what the reasons behind redirecting The Laramie Project (film) and The Laramie Project were. I'm not sure if I've missed a discussion on this somewhere, but I was somewhat surprised. The Laramie Project (film) was not very long, I know, but it absolutely had the potential of being a fully developed article, as I'm sure did The Laramie Project. I would have thought both were notable enough for their own article. Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard appears to be in list form, with most of the items probably not requiring their own articles. What's wrong with having the list and the two articles? Thanks, -- Beloved Freak  16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with them having their own articles. But, the articles were just stubs ...and have been for a long time. Until someone takes the time to work on them, I believe they are best served merged into an omnibus article. If you want to make them B-class or better on their own, OK. But, it is easier to maintain if they are all together. And, easier to fight off an AfD. My Wiki-philosophy is mergist: merge stubs into a central article until some one can spend the time and effort to expand. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I suppose that makes sense. I was hoping to see the film article develop further, but since I don't have the time at the moment, I guess it can wait. -- Beloved Freak  17:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who knows, I might even expand them one day. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Murder!!

 * Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The University Transition Program
Could you please restore the University Transititon Program article that you deleted? I need the info that was on the page. Thanks. JoshuaKuo (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo


 * Sorry. Wikipedia doesn't provide free web space. For the program, see The University Transition Program. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason for deleting The University Transition Program was "A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance: non notable school course" How is the Transition Program not notable? It's an early college entrance program, and is the only program of its kind in Canada. How is that not notable? It's certainly more notable than the hundreds and thousands of regular schools that have articles in Wikipedia. JoshuaKuo (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)JoshuaKuo

Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard
Re: your edits here: The leading # makes the see also link jump directly to the section on the same page. Without them, the links are being followed to the redirect pages, which in turn point back to the according sections in Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 20:09, April 29, 2008


 * You're right. It just looked ugly! Should put in alias. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alias? You mean [[WP:PIPE|piping ]]? It didn't work when I tried it. Dorftrottel (criticise) 20:14, April 29, 2008


 * yup, same thing. I did it within the text as the see also template doesn't allow it (as far as I can tell). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

K, looks good. Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:23, April 29, 2008

May 2008
The weather is much better now! I'm heading outside. Sitting around inside is just not healthy. I am taking a long Wiki-break. Mind you, I'm not going anywhere. Just running and swimming more in the time slot I used to spend here. Sorry, I am a foul weather friend of Wikipedia. I will return when the weather turns foul. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pah. It's still too cold!  And where were you for the Vancouver meet-up, eh?  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

GA icon
Thanks, but I only started the section after it was proposed. Everyone else has been editing it and adding to it. will381796 (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still a good idea. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Young Actors Theatre
Wow! Thanks! You've magically fixed up all this perfectly. Have a great weekend Paul Laetoli (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Film banner tagging
Hey WWC, I was looking at some of your recent banner edits, and I wanted to ask if you would maybe take a more careful look at the parameter usage at Template:Film, because many of the parameters are being added erroneously (e.g., |needs-infobox=yes means that the article doesn't have an infobox yet), superfluously (having parameters for |nested=yes and |nested=no), or outright deleted (such as |NZ-task-force=yes). I'm very happy to have additional editors flagging articles as necessary, but this only makes less work for other project editors if they're properly tagging, so if you could take a minute to review the code instructions, I'd be very grateful. Otherwise, keep up the good work, and I look forward to your edits! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Project Narnia
Hello, when you moved Project Narnia into the Project Novels space, there were some subpages that were not moved. How do we go about adding them back to the project? LloydSommerer (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page: Characters, World War Z
I did a good deal of work on this page, trying to connect the characters with the Real World (tm) elements satirized. I thought that that was the point of being "notable" but perhaps I have misunderstood. I have to say I don't spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia; mostly I came to see what my students were cribbing (!) and have edited a few pages. I found the deletion of my contribution somewhat disconcerting. I believe that you were the person who deleted it and I hope you can put it back again or at least let me know why you don't like it. Thanks Stewart king (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note
An article which you reviewed and passed as a WP:GA-rated article, est and The Forum in popular culture, is under disruption by who has repeatedly remove large chunks and even whole subsections of sourced info from the article. I have started a notice at WP:ANI Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents - your input at ANI or action in this matter would be appreciated. Cirt (talk)

Busy
You seem to be slow around here as well. Best wishes, -- Secisek (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's summer! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce
I hope you are having a great holiday!!! Since you've been an interested and involved editor with William's article, and so helpful in pushing us gently to the next level,  I thought you might like to know that we finally did the deed and listed it at FAC. Hopefully it will all be alright! --Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, summer is great. I took an hour and read through the latest iteration and read the various comments. I don't see any reason why this can't be FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Class Project
They arrive on Monday.... when I will break the news. I'll organize a list on my talkpage of who they are. Feel free to interact or inform me of anything that may be problematic. It is an experiment in which I expect some challenges... not the least of how to fairly grade their efforts. If they are not too bold in their topic selection maybe things will remain sane! Wish them luck. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Thanks for the links. I figured others had traveled this path before. Many of the same motivation factors inspired me in this direction as well; although the project seems even more of a challenge after reading his experiences. Despite the course being an AP Biology class and the students being very bright... I may have to temper my expectations somewhat. I am very excited to see how this plays out. God bless them if they go back and read the FA history of Introduction to Evolution... they will be scared witless. Their success or failure will likely depend on the collaborative skills; hopefully they will find the same level of support I stumbled across. Should be interesting --- no matter how it plays out! --JimmyButler (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There here --- oh my --- what am I thinking!--JimmyButler (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, you've opened the floodgates! I'll place a welcome template on their talk pages... Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What an excellent example of the spirit of Wikipedia. Your efforts went far in boosting my students confidence in knowing there is support out there. After perusing the dialog on the evolution page; I think there was genuine fear in their hearts. This was a fabulous opportunity to show them the positive side of Wikipedia. I was both proud and excited to share with them your efforts - the impact on the class was phenomenal - they have seen first hand the collaborative component to this project. My sincerest gratitude. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting us up with a project page and a welcome template. It doesn't seem so overwhelming now. --Yohmom (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the thank you, Yohmom and the barnstar,JimmyButler! By the way, after the weirdness of getting Introduction to Evolution to FA, I swore off Wikipedia for a month. When I did return, it was the accidental discovery of  WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem that really made Wikipedia fun again. I think your project may be very similar. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, from another member of Butler's AP Bio class. Its great to see that others, especially Wiki-admins at that, are getting involved in this project (despite it being a whole 4 days old). It looks as though we may be successful in promoting one, if not several articles to GA status and (who knows?) possible an FA. *knock on wood*. Again, thank you!--FoodPuma (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for helping me get started! I basically had no idea where to even begin! Your help is greatly appreciated! HannahSharpe (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A challenge... this should add an element of interest!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! Just wanted to thank you again for all your help in our class project! Hopefully I can be a challenge in our "race" to FA. Ha! FoodPuma (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises
Dear Wassupwestcoast...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 19:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, good to see you back! Stick with the slothing :) dave souza, talk 19:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm sticking with the slothing! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your not slothing; your efforts on WikiProject AP Biology 2008 have been enormously helpful. Besides, things may heat up as the students struggle with the task at hand ... there is no way that you'll sit on the sidelines!!! I've given them about two weeks to select a topic; wanna guess how many commit the night before the deadline on 9/26/08!!!! dave souza if you should see a topic of shared interest; feel free to jump in and keep them honest!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry...I'm watching! So far so good with the project...by the way, you have serious competition at WikiProject North of the Rio Grande. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We've accepted their challenge and appointed you referee. --JimmyButler (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Very funny :-)  The last thing I want to be is standing between two highly competitive teams. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortfin mako shark start not c, why?
Hi! Can you explain why you reclassified Shortfin mako shark to start, as i see it is C, it is resonably referenced and have substantial material (remeber this is a shark, we do not know that much about sharks). Just wondering what I missed when it comes to classification or what you see as missing in the page. --Stefan talk 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Between stub and GA there is no wikipedia-wide recognition of a c class...I realize that some like to use it...but it isn't very helpful ie there is no peer reviewing process for anything below GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand, are you saying that since nothing except GA and FA is reviewed you will declassified everything else to start? or? My question was WHY you declassified from C to start since I want to understand the classification better since I though it was a C. Compare Oceanic_white_tip_shark which is a FA shark page. --Stefan talk 03:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to call it C...well, be Bold...but that is why c class isn't generally recognized and anything below GA isn't worth arguing over. You may class it whatever you want to...there is no wikipedia system that defines c class like there is GA. And, c class is a very new classification. For the longest time, the rank was Start and then B class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was bold, I did classify it as C, you reverted and therefore you argued with MY BOLD classification. I wanted to know why, and I guess your answer is since you do not accept C. What I really wanted to know was WHY you did not think it was C, since I though ALL classification was defined at WP:ASSESS which is a guideline and should be generally recognized. C is defined there, same as FA and GA, but maybe there is another official policy that does not accept C, I do not know that, please tell me if I'm wrong. But never mind, I wanted to be CIVIL and not start a edit war, I wanted to understand why I classified that page wrongly, I do not really care if it is start or C. If you do not want to accept C and want to reclassify C's to start it is OK with me, I just wanted to know WHY you thought it was not C according to WP:ASSESS. --Stefan talk 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Stefan! The "why" is that I see no useful difference between calling it C or Start class. What is the difference between:


 * Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.


 * and


 * Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.


 * I prefer to downgrade the article to Start class but you may prefer to upgrade it to C. But whether it is Start or C class, it amounts to the same thing! Anyway, this is all for naught as a high school class has adopted the article and intends to take it all the way to FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I'm the 'mentor' for the guy that picked it, that is why i reclassified it, since I though that it should be correctly classified according to the guideline WP:ASSESS when he/she started and that is WHY I asked why you though it was start instead of C since you obviously cared enough to reclassify it and even REVERTED my previous edit which was to classify it to C. Nevermind! I will not revert you, you want to have it as start that is fine with me, I just wanted to know why you wanted to classify it as start and not C, that was all, I agree that this is a waste of time. --Stefan talk 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussing things on Wikipedia is never a waste of time! Anyway, I will probably see you again at Shortfin mako shark as I'm also helping out a bit with the project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but what I meant was that our time could have been better spent adding content. Not sure what is going on in the project, I see no progress or edits at all from the person that is supposed to update the page. But maybe they have not started yet?? --Stefan talk 05:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for running cleanup crew; all the tags and such. I've so many irons in the fire and scrambling to keep up with what they are and are not doing. The deadline for the references is Friday; yet, note the number who will procrastinate - surprising since this comes with a significant grade. There is one out of the gate and on to a GA attempt. It will be interesting to see how that pans out - he certainly is anxious. They all are not entering this with equal enthusiasm. Interesting dialog concerning C class. I had added it to the project page based on its listing within the article and then saw your edit. Are B class articles assigned with authority or a peer review of any kind? I asked because I was contemplating making it a standard for grading the students efforts. Stub - B class gets "B" grade. If they are assigned without oversight .... then I can't use it as a measurement of progress. Again ... thank you so much for the help in keeping things organized. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks! The short answer regarding B-class: it is meaningless. They are assigned without oversight. Only FA class has a rigourous process. GA has a process with assessment oversight. There is also a recall process and a regular 'sweep' of the articles to catch the bad ones. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The banker horse might prove to be interesting. They have the right idea in that barrier island horses are a very big deal in our area. The National Park Service is heavily vested in the Shackleford Banks Ponies. There are even researchers located within our area to interview. Plus ... she actually owns a horse and knows people who have adopted banker ponies. Also, horse people are a dedicated lot ... there will be people interested in helping.


 * I'm learning as we go... the NC list would have been an excellent series. Some of their topics are so very fringe. I'm not getting solid answers as to the logic of their selections. Enough of the switching thou ... I know your getting tired of moving banners and updating he list.


 * The selection choices as references were enlighting. They are learning ... some the hard way ... that just because it is on the internet --- doesn't mean it is true. Actually, it is a little frightening what some might consider reputable references. I think it is sinking in ... google and take the top one on the list may not be the best approach.
 * Finally --- I think I would draw the line on doing any formal reviews if I were you. You've invested more than enough time in this as it is. We can let the outside source do the GA evaluations... if you like .. I'll tell them you are too close to the project to pass judgements. Patience is a virtue ... let em sweat a little!!!!!! Thanks --JimmyButler (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination?
Hello! I am one of Jimmy Butler's students and I have just recently nominated the article I am editing for GA status. Unfortunatly, it seems that there aren't many willing to review and either approve or deny it's admission to GA status. Thus, I was wondering, should time allow, if you could possibly get the ball rolling and write a review for it - good or bad. Either way, I really just want to get feedback from the community and, if possible, make GA status! If your schedule is too tight and you can't then thats fine... you've already earned a thousand "thanks" and more! Again, thank you for your time and help on our project! :-) FoodPuma 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe this weekend ...but to tell the truth, getting through the GA backlog is a part of Wikipedia's reality. It can sometimes take several weeks. The best way to get an article reviewed is to review other articles. So roll up your sleeves and reduce the overall backlog by reviewing any article that interests you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh
I do discuss these issue regard citations in class. At length. Even regarding the use of templates, formatting, credibility. They are not going into this blindfolded.... yet? How much does it cost to ship a keg of beer to Canada from NC. Is that even legal? I hope not! --JimmyButler (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think they are doing not so bad...the idea of a good citation seems so simple but apparently not so...and the template system is a bit arcane. As for shipping beer...well, it is even illegal to ship it between Canadian provinces! ...but the Wiki-thought is appreciated :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FA Team support
Hi Wassup, You may have noticed that the FA-Team has just launched a mission to help WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and WikiProject North of the Rio Grande improve articles towards featured quality. As you are quite active in the first of these, I'm hoping you'll support this joint endeavour. It would be helpful it you added your name to the articles you are watchlisting on the mission page. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw it coming; however, it is always a tad disappointing. The group will be more stream-line second semester. The course requires a dedication of time and effort - more than some can expend. I anticipate a couple more... then we will get down to the business cranking out quality articles. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Many Things
The following accounts seemed to be exclusively focused on one task. That being the criticism of the endomembrane system article written by VivaLaLacy
 * Criticism101
 * AwesomeOpossuminthelake
 * Cooldrummer
 * It seems strange that their entire (albeit brief) existence is focused on one task - to tear down an obscure article that absolutely no one has heard of. They also seemed to be editing each others talk pages. Is there a way to determine the location of their IP address. Fifty bucks says all three are local to Croatan - either Newport or Jacksonville NC. Your thoughts?
 * Also I cede the competition to the Canadians and plan to make a more formal speech regarding our defeat. however, there is at least one more out there that is very impressive - phagocytosis. In my opinion it is the best we have to offer. I couldn't get User talk:Eulemur2008 to pull the trigger on GA - not sure if it is a confidence issue or perfectionist. Also - I continue to hold out hope for Banker Horse. The topic is highly focused; with limited references. However, the student has gone out full force in personally contacting anyone and everyone that is a expert on the subject. She has turned it into a serious research project. As forNorth American River Otter- he wants it so very bad. I'm having to bite my tongue and not clean things up too much on his behalf. I plan to continue the project through second semester. At least one needs to attempt FA. In fact, I was somewhat surprised that none from University of BC made such an attempt. Did their grade hinge on making at least GA?
 * The remaining students should represent us well. The attrition is a complex problem dealing with scheduling, parental expectations, GPA/Point chasing, youth-maturity, priorities; and my complete unwillingness to compromise along with working two 40 hour a week jobs. All excuses aside - I still think this project has been a success. Your behind the scenes efforts are highly appreciated. I wish you were able to see the learning curve on this end and the very positive impact on my students. A mere barnstar is an inadequate sign of appreciation for your efforts in upgrading this project to a much more sophisticated program than anything I could have developed on my own. I bet there is a doctoral thesis in Education somewhere in all this madness - too bad you're not working on a doctorate in education. --JimmyButler (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't made too much efforts on your project...I wish I had done more. I didn't follow the UBC project at all so I don't know why they didn't attempt an FA. I can say that over Christmas Day dinner, I actually championed Wikipedia with you specifically - aka the teacher from North Carolina - as the exemplar. My point was that the best of Wikipedia was very good. And, that in the classroom Wikipedia actually was better than the traditional class essay in that it interactively focused students' attention on verifiability and the concept of the good reference. So, your effort has and is having some effect even if just some fun conversation of the Wikipedia is bad / Wikipedia is good sort. Anyway, I'm still poking around at some of your articles. I kind of hope river otter and banker horse make it to FA. Cheers, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging Phagocytes and Phagocytosis
There is not much information in the phagocytosis article to begin with. I looked over the article and feel that I have already covered everything and more in phagocyte. However, there is some information in phagocytosis that is irrelevant to my article and that is the part on protists; this information is not applicapable to my article because phagocyte discusses the cells of the immune system and not all cells that use phagocytosis. For the time being phagocytosis should stay as a different article because of this. Thanks for the help. Eulemur2008 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * About the junk material in phagocytosis, do you mean the stuff that is included in phagocyte or just any material that can be deleted? Eulemur2008 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your editing of phagocytosis did not, as far as I could tell, erase unique information. Eulemur2008 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My previous comment about the phagocytosis article overlooked the fact that some media had been removed perhaps some of this should have been saved (in hindsight); I did not consider them important until recently. However my computer will not let me play the clips to see which ones had the most value, so this is for you to decide (or anybody else who views the clips). Thanks again for the help. Eulemur2008 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The videos had to go: see What Wikipedia is not which is policy. Specifically,
 * Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.
 * Pictures, sound and video have to illustrate a point made in text. Cheers!, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

N.A. River Otter
Hello.

Thank you very much for showing me those online informational sources. I plan on drawing some information to apply to the article from those links. Your assistance in this project has been of the utmost valuabe quality. I appreciate your efforts in and dedication to Wikiproject AP Biology. Please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation (following Mr. Butler's notion):

Best regards! --Wikitrevor (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

N.A. River Otter Update
Okay, I just finished the article re-structure process (i.e. categorizing info.) to get the format similar to its sister articles, Sea otter and Giant otter. We should be closing in on that GA pass, I believe the requisites have been met. Unfortunately, the GA Nomination page is backlogged, but maybe the article can make it there soon. I'll try and brush it up some today. --Wikitrevor (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasonal Greeting

 * Seasons greetings and a Happy (Darwin inspired) New Year! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)