User talk:Weakopedia/Archive 1

Your view point


Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You might also find these policies and guidelines useful:
 * What do we mean if we say that you might have a Conflict of Interest?
 * What do we mean by Neutral Point of View?
 * What sources are counted as reliable?
 * What makes the subject of an article notable?
 * Why was my page deleted?
 * An essay containging a List of bad article ideas

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!

If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question.

By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add  at the end of your comment. That will put your user name and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the  icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.

I am now going to add my signature, using : --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You have an interesting viewpoint! However, it leaves me with one question: what, then, are reliable sources of information? If we can't use newspapers, magazines or government announcements, then what is left that would be counted as universally reliable?

Obviously, we can't rely on individuals to always be reliable in what they say are facts. You say that we can't use a lot of what Wikipedia currently considers to be reliable sources.

So, again, I ask: what sources would you count as reliable?

Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your comments. Your question of course lies at the heart of what I am saying, and is a subject that interests me greatly. I should like to reply after I take some time to consider your points, thank you for the opportunity. Weakopedia (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Take your time! However, I would be curious to know whether you were planning on helping with the encyclopedia itself? My only warning (apart from not to vandalise!) would be to make sure that anything you add to articles is sourced from (you know what I'm about to say...) reliable, independent sources - or alternatively, if you remove information, that it is unsourced information.
 * As a general rule, if you want to make major and/or controversial changes to an article, it might be an idea to discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page. To get to this, go to the article, and then click on the Discussion tab - always add your comments to the bottom of the page (unless you are replying to an early comment, in which case you put it after that comment) - and sign your comment. Please note that you only sign on talk pages, never in articles themselves.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah... thank you for that. Although I must be honest and say that while I welcome your original question about my views, your second edit does not seem to be the assumption of good faith that I read about Wikipedians holding dear. "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.". So in answer to your question I would point out that the question itself is perhaps unwarranted. Salutations. Weakopedia (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall give the edit a name this time, as I have just seen how monitoring watchlists is made easier when the user adds a suitable comment. Weakopedia (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't assuming good faith! The intention was to point out the importance of reliable sources to Wikipedia - and suggest ways in which you could make sure that any edits you make were not reverted straight away, which is something which a lot of new editors experience! I've seen how frustrated new editors can get when they add/remove something from an article, only to have it reverted.
 * No criticism of your motives was implied, and if this was the message that you got from it, I apologise! Happy editing --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I have one request... your initial welcoming message contains precisely the same information as has been reproduced in the recently added 'Help' section on this page. This means the same block of text is repeated twice on the page, which I am sure you would agree is redundant. Would you mind to remove one or the other blocks? It would make the page much more readable, and remove no vital information. I am not opposed to leaving the 'Help' section unchanged if we can weed out the redundant text from the welcome message. I would do it myself but I fear that editing another users posts on a talk page would be considered improper. I thank you. Weakopedia (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove it! I had forgotten that my standard welcome message template included the help section! I would probably remove the section at the bottom of the page if I was you.
 * This is your talk page - you are free to remove anything you want from it, whether that is something that you put here or something put here by another editor. The only thing frowned upon is to edit someone else's remarks here - but remove anything you want from here! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thanks again. I shall edit the first section as it is always useful for anyone who drops by to know that a committed user is monitoring things and how best to get any help they need. I am still considering your original question - mostly because my own views could do with more reliable sourcing! But rest assured that although I may be inclined to challenge opinions I shall attempt to do so entirely within the established framework. It is not my intention to impose my individual will upon anyone or anything, but there is always room for debate. Fare ye well. Weakopedia (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your question - it's answering has led me across Wikipedia and through many other areas. I hope to have a suitable response soon. It is an interesting topic that deserves consideration! Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting help
Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review
It didn't turn out how I wanted, but I responded. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 12:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. You are obviously able to learn something from your actions, and I doubt there shall be a repeat of the event. My reason for adding to the discussion was simple - many Wikipedians were willing to assure you that one wrong act would not condemn you or your work here. I felt a danger of the event itself being forgotten in the rush to not condemn one editor. People reading the discussion should come away with the impression that the community disapproved of your actions, but that the community was big enough to recognise the contribution you have made and not condemn you unduly. It should also be plain to them what the consequences would be for repitition. Without an element of reprimand it would be too easy for an onlooker to conclude that an individual Wikipedian may pick and choose their manner of discussion provided they apologise for it quickly enough. I believe that now the casual reader will see both extremes of the argument, and that this shall serve to enhance their understanding of the community. Weakopedia (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I have no intention of purposefully forgetting it myself. Of that you can be sure. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added this under a heading as it is about to be mentioned on the editor review itself. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How obliging, many thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving my comments to the appropriate section. Once again - your intentions in the matter may be perfectly honourable. You may even have had undisclosed personal reasons for reacting the way you did. You understand, I believe, that what you did was wrong. And it is not unforgiveable. But there is always a danger that in the rush to reassure a good editor false signals can be sent out by the other members of the community, that certain behaviour will be tolerated in certain circumstances. The message however should be very clear. I applaud your seeking a review, and I hope that your spirit for Wikipediaing remains unabated. However for Wikipedias sake I think there should be some appropriate reprimand, even if it is only a warning template. Many people in the future will have cause to discover the debate, as I did, and I believe uniformity of response is important. Weakopedia (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly and if I am ever submitted for an RfA, all of my editor reviews will be linked to in my acceptance of the nomination. And yes, as I have said, I have... had personal reasons for it, which I believe I have now put back in the past for good. As also stated on the editor review, I asked for warnings/blocks on the talk pages of two admins (and came close to begging xeno, honestly, because I felt so bad about it). And I've given some thought about a Wikibreak, but nothing's happened yet. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your soulsearching does you credit. I wish you well. Weakopedia (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone's commented on you at my review. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 17:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So they did! An admin no less - did you read the advice printed at the end? It leads to a page describing how it is best to ignore incivility. However to get that far you first have to read his comments, which were not entirely civil. So what does that mean?! Is his advice for himself? Is it for the rest of us - is he saying to ignore him because he is uncivil? Goodness knows. Well, having looked at his user page it seems he is a master of incivility so I can only assume he carries the 'advice' pinned to his tail to cover himself for when people become annoyed by his attitude. Rest assured that if you become an admin you will already have an attitude far better than some of them! Weakopedia (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved. It may be my editor review but it's the longest I've ever seen and it's becoming a warzone. I don't go there without full Kevlar body armour and a FN P90 any more. I just thought you might want to read it. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Ultimately it is possible to disagree yet still be nice about it. In fact sometimes you can be in the wrong and still come off the more reasonable just by being nice about it. It might be insincere at times but overall it's just a better way to do business in a community. 'Speak softly and carry a big stick' and all that. Weakopedia (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP
I'm having a hard time making anyone see reason in the above discussion - especially when most of those discussing, seemingly the most active contributors to the article (and the 'big city' game), don't want to see reason.

I agree with your user page intro; if I could add to that, I would say that Wikipedia contradicts itself in its very fundaments: How can it be seen as an authoritative source when the weight of authority and authoritative fact themselves are contested (as so often is the case) by the contributors themselves? Many articles here are a reflection of that politick; many are based on a collection of 'chosen' sources reflecting the viewpoint of the majority of an article's contributors, an article that too often tells a story that strays from objective fact or even reality. I've had a very long and direct experience with this in my contributions to the Paris article, believe me.

It is here that you will not only see the effect of the media on the opinion of the masses, but, within the contributions themselves, all the fallacies and aggressiveness of human competition: a selective "defensive reasoning" that chooses facts that best support the point of view being defended. This facet of public-wide contribution is both unscientific and immature, and cannot result in any article that can be trusted completely.

Perhaps it is along these lines that you should present your argument - your front page does have the tones of a conspiracy theory, and probably will be accused of being such by those who don't agree with you - for their lack of a more sound argument, no doubt. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the AFD and went to the article, and the discussion page, to determine how to or even whether to respond on the AFD page. Then I googled PWC and a few other related things. By chance I have the OECD yearbook and the UN yearly report on the state of the worlds cities and I tried to recreate the information contained in the article but I was unable to do so in the way the article was presented, and my vote was for deletion.
 * Looking back I see that all I did was summarize some of your remarks! But I reached my own conclusions upon consideration of the evidence.


 * I certainly believe that the structure of Wikipedia can lead to an individual or group having the ability to monopolise parts of history. I feel this is somewhat representitive of the world at large. Less than 1% of Wikipedians are regular editors and only about 3% of those have admin functions so the danger of having your reasonable arguments confounded is high. And it is certainly a valid point that the customs of an editors country of origin are too often applied where inapplicable.
 * The nature of Wikipedia appeals to a fundamental part of the human psyche that gains satisfaction from making connections. As a social project it is extremely interesting and one can observe all the facets of humanity in the interactions within. It's first barrier is the quality of information that is allowed in which can be further compounded by individual editors and how they select and use the information they are permitted to introduce.


 * For me then there are two questions, can Wikipedia and Wikipedians present an accurate impression of the facts, and can what Wikipedia regards as factual information really be called such.


 * My intro was written with a moments thought - I will modify it as my impressions of Wikipedia distil, but I intend to keep the provocative nature intact. Whilst I am not a combatitive person by nature the intro was designed to precipitate spirited debate on the matter, which I believe is possible without animosity. I am certainly trying to be considered about my reasoning and use of supporting matter.


 * I also understand your point about conspiracy theorists. My intention would be to show not that there is a group of people whose intentions are to subvert history but rather that by necessity governments and businesses may not be open about their dealings, and by necessity manipulate the media, and that by relying on mass media and government issued information that Wikipedia can only serve to act as an agent of propoganda.
 * In truth my ideas on the subject are in their infancy and I hope to refine them with help. Your comments have been very much appreciated. Weakopedia (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the very facets of human nature Wikipedia depends upon to expand (making connections, 'leaving a mark' (about "my interests" and "my territory" )) can also be a limitation to its quality.


 * I see few problems in "high level of knowledge" articles (scientific articles concerning biology, geology, etc.), but the fun starts when we descend to more "common knowledge" articles such as shoe polish and... city articles. The lower the level of needed knowledge in an article descends, the more open it is to the possibly confrontation-provoking aspects of human nature (defence of 'territory' and 'self-worth') - the worst of this lot, IMHO, are articles on cities and famous people.


 * Add into the mix what the general public "knows" - here we are getting into the territory you outlined in your introduction. Many identify themselves by who they idolise; the 'higher' status of idols is largely based on a 'reputation' adopted and even fabricated by the more social aspects of the general public itself. The problem with the greater public's 'knowledge' about subjects such as these is that it was, like you say, usually fed to them by the sources they see every day - by the media - and few have taken the time for a more objective look into the subject of their idolisation; a few contributors are even loathe to do so because discovering the more reality-based aspects of the subject of their idolisation would 'damage' their opinion of themselves; a few other are even militant in their efforts to impede the publication of any fact that could damage the reputation of the same. I'm sure this is why contributions to 'biographical' wikipedia articles were the first to have been put under 'peer review' before publication.


 * "What I believe" (or "what they believe" ) articles are another active part of the WikiZoo - especially for topics such as global warming and creationism. What is lacking there again is objectivity - and I find it amusing (with an undercurrent of perturbation) to see that articles such as these are always promoting media articles as "citable sources", rather than citing the organisations that are the very origins of the information itself, not to mention in avoiding all mention of the consensus as a whole of the same. Again, many are loathe to have their "vision" of the world disturbed, and then there are those who loathe to see anything objective published about the message they think they control; there is irony that, often in this case, the victim and the con artist work hand in hand towards the same end.


 * "Other culture" articles can open another type of a bag of worms: Few contributors to "other-language" Wikipedia articles (for example, the English article on Brazil) speak the language they are contributing to natively, and many of this category want to project the best image possible ("we're great, too!") to the rest of the world. This is why many articles such as these read like tourist ads, and this is why many contain so many false messages contributed by those wishing to elevate "their home" to compete with (or resemble) other world places. I can speak from personal experience here: at my arrival to the Paris article around five years ago, it conveyed the message to the rest of the world that "Paris" was the unique name of a skyscraper'd metropolis that covered an area over fifty times Paris' real size; it turned out that most of the article had been written by a few contributors hoping to con the more ignorant of North American English-speaking foreigners into believing that Paris as a city was "just like theirs" and the contributors (also conning themselves) lived there. Paris is a particular city with particular administative/territorial/judicial/economical particularities, and the how and the why of how it is defined should be clearly explained (it wasn't).


 * I guess you've brought up a subject that's been bothering me for a while - I've had little opportunity to talk about it here, which may explain why I wrote so much. Do let me know what you think - it is possible to carry on this conversation on a talk-page sub-page, if you would like to keep your talk 'front page' clear. Cheers. THE PROMENADER  16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have really hit the nail on the head regarding articles about things that are close to people. Thanks to the media the general public sees more of celebrities than they do their own family. People know more about newscasters, politicians and actors than they do about cousins, aunts or neighbours. And yes, people become very offended when you challenge their perceptions of their 'heroes', the reason of course being that the identification is so strong that they see any challenge as one on their own personal belief system.

Your point about sourcing is also well taken. Wiki rules state that it doesn't matter if the sky is blue and everyone on earth can look out their window and observe that fact - it is only whenever the blueness of the sky become a topic for discussion in the media that it is of note and may be Wikified. This is worrying for two reasons - firstly that the media get to decide what is suitable for Wikipedia. Secondly if the media report instead that the sky is red, and are consistent in that, then Wikipedia has no choice but to report it as such.

I have been thinking of your remarks as I have searched through Wikipedia this last week. The Brazil article is interesting. One editor makes the point that he shall not believe anything he reads on the internet over something he can read in a book written by a reputable source. It is an interesting argument to present, especially whilst using it to expand an online document, but it certainly illustrates a point. The sources that Wikipedians use are required to be secondhand but by the time it reaches the internet the information is third or fourth hand at best. So the fact that everyone on earth can see the sky is blue AND there are multiple scientific studies showing that the sky is blue, there is consensus between all humans and the entire scientific community, for us to say so here would be considered 'original research' unless it is consistently reported on in the news, the secondary sources.

This really necessitates a review of the secondary sources permitted, which I don't see happening so much. Government and business are clever, they pioneered the use of psychology for manipulation. Government has a clear responsibility to protect the national interest, but they must often admit that this necessitates the use of subterfuge, propoganda and more. They even invented the term 'miss-spoke' for the things they feel obliged to say that are not necessarily accurate. Being publically accurate is not in their job description. More so with businesses which of course are considered living things with rights and responsibilities to themselves.

For me then there are two visions of Wiki - Wikipedia as is, and Wikipedia as it could be. If we go with Wikipedia as is then a lot of work needs to be done about the sourcing. It isn't good enough to be spoonfed your oppinion by the media. Just because the media all agree on something doesn't make it true. For Wikipedia 'as is' that needs to me made clear, that the opinions expressed within are NOT the opinions of milliuons of editors but simply the opinions of those behind the media. And the sources should be investigated thoroughly, they are the whole basis for this website. Where they can be shown to have been inaccurate they should be dropped, no matter how big and official sounding they are. And the fact that the media say that another media source is reliable should not matter - Wikipedia might not be making claims of it's own but it is claiming that it's sourcing policy is adequate so that is what it needs to work on. At least this would be an honest Wikipedia, admitting what it is and trying to clear up it's mess.

I wonder though just how much Wikipedia would be left if we couldn't use sources that have shown to have misrepresented or skewed facts in the past. And then of course there is the problem of ommission - if the reliable media don't talk about it, it isn't news, isn't notable and isn't for Wiki.

Which makes me consider Wiki 'as it could be'. I read an article likening Wiki to a huge online role playing game, and that is exactly how many people here play it. Out of all the users only 1% play the game, but if you look through the user pages you can see them trying to 'level up' to sysop status and beyond. Wiki is a giant experiment in social activity in my opinion and the rules have been very cleverly worded to give them a framework to achieve their goals. Many users even abandon all notion of content and focus specifically on the rules of the game, and those rules are designed for the media led majority.

This means that every blogger, every website on earth can say the sky is blue, but the spoonfed majority still get to print the medias assertion that it is in fact red as fact. You can see it in most articles - there is continual disagreement with the parties pushing each other into 'conspiracy theorist' and 'conformist' camps.

I think Wiki should either fess up to what it is, not the opinion of the majority but the opinion of the media, or it should go all the way and become the giant social experiemnt it really is, allow more sources and go to town with the arguing.

By chance I was given a library, maybe 3,000 books covering 300 years of opinion, economics, science and government. I opened a random book from 1924 which was like the Wikipedia of it's day, reporting on subjects that had received much media attention in the preceeding period using media articles as sources. The first article was an expose of how international financiers had channeled funds through Britain to neutral countried during WW1 where it was distributed directly to the Germans with the full understanding and blessing of the British government, an act which prolonged the war by three years no less. The second article was describing how sunspot activity worked on a 35 year cycle and to expect global warming during the latter part of the century.

During the recent 'Climategate' affair I went looking through the alleged emails at random, picking out storylines and following them through. One which brought me amusement were scientists lamenting that certain officials seemed to get their scientific information directly from Wikipedia. I laughed, however I share their concern.

There are rays of hope - there are many editors and admins who are genuinely trying to contribute to something for everyone. However I believe that the underlying idea they are working for is flawed, and even if they brave the pitfalls of being a Wikipedian in theend they have only helped create an illusion of a global encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays from Phantomsteve!



 * Hey, thanks a lot. Happy holidays to you too. How you guessed I look like that old guy with the glasses I'll never know... Weakopedia (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

diffs/hello
Hello, I am preparing to file a complaint about this situation. I am collecting these diffs because I am trying to sort out what has been done and to figure out how to document what I need. I believe one of the admin in this situation has acted inappropriately. I am not inflaming any situation, nor do I intend to, etc. I am very upset about what has transpired and I want to show these to another admin and get advice about how to follow up with a complaint. Thank you for your concern, but it seems all of you are responding to these diffs because your friend Daedalus969 is complaining about them and claiming that they are there to somehow disrespect him. This is not true. Malke 2010  12:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I was talking to the admin, not to you. It seemed like they were being slightly presumptuous and needlessly inflammatory. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for replying. I was in touch with the admin I mentioned above and she has been marvelous as always, and I feel things are entirely resolved for me.  Have a happy New Year. :D   Malke  2010  20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff
I think that page may have been nominated previously for MfD, but I don't feel like looking around to see for sure. Editors are usually given a lot of leeway in what they can have in their userspace. If he's not mentioning any real names or going overboard with the personal attacks, it's probably ok to let him be. Of course, editors can consider that page along with other evidence when judging the overall value that Mr. Connolley brings to Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I have just spent a lot of time looking at cases of user pages that were deleted for alegedly constituting a personal attack, and when I stumbled across the page in question it seemed in context to be a worse use of talk space than most of the articles which have already been deleted due to the same rationale. I will check to see if it has been nominated for deletion already, although I must admit that it isn't any great priority of mine. I do however believe that Mr Connolley could be making more constructive use of his time at Wikipedia than compiling lists of grievances. Thanks very much for your comments. Weakopedia (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad and assassinations
You seem reasonable, I want to discuss the dispute with you. The problem is that :Misconceptions2 is not willing to provide one secondary, reliable source for every assasination attempt claim. If that not provided I think a section about an attempt full of primary and unreliable sources is worthless. Sole Soul (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Misconceptions2 is really not helping himself at the moment. As to your question about the sources, much of the article is obviously inadequately sourced. In addition, where there are references, these are at times contradictory. Some of the intermediate edits have been quite useful, however I do see a problem with restricting the scope of the article to assassinations carried out by or sanctioned by Muhammad. I think if the article remains as Muhammad and Assassinations then much work is needed, and the inclusion of attempted assassinations is valid (if reliably sourced). I would support a page renaming to something more representative of the article - user Bali Ultimate did some great work with the intro, correctly showing that the article is more about Muhammads attitude to killing. I think renaming the article in line with Bali Ultimates intro would be a good idea, but whatever approach is taken the references without a doubt need to be improved and a lot of material removed. I would be happy to help where I can. Weakopedia (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, the naming and the scope was not my concern. My concern is sources. I don't know if you have read this . Sole Soul (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read the section about the use of Ibn Ishaq. As far as a I can tell none of his works survive, nor his students edits of his work, but copies and incomplete copies of the copies his students made of his work. They shouldn't be used to demonstrate historical accuracy as they are thrice removed from the original works. In general I support the idea of deleting the page entirely. I think there is scope for a different page discussing Muhammads attitude to killing, but it would not take the format of the current article. Failing that some of the ideas could be incorporated into the article on Muhammad, if they are not there already. Removal of the unsourced material and the irrelevancies would shorten the article enough to achieve this. Weakopedia (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. Weakopedia (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar award

 * Why, thank you very much! Sometimes a little good natured humour helps put things in context. Good day to you. Weakopedia (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I added this barnstar to my userpage to give it a sense of pizzazz :P Weakopedia (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "All of you stop crying and go do some work - in 24 hours there won't even be a problem anymore" - amen to that!  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a failing of all projects like this that there are more people who wish to discuss the concept of working than will actually just do the work. Your efforts are much appreciated! Weakopedia (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales
Please stop doing that. If it's out of place someone else will remove it. --TS 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop crying. You have seen the instructions on Wales' page same as everyone else and while they discourage vandalism they encourage changing the page. They do not say that there is a preferred presentation method that all Wikipedians should uphold. Reverting vandalism is an honourable thing. Going out of ones way to keep someone elses userpage to a self-preferred standard is extremely arrogant - fitting for that particular userpage perhaps but nonetheless a waste of everyones life. Wales is a big boy now and perfectly able to decide what is out of place, capable of reverting non-vandalism he doesn't like, and you people should be capable of doing something a bit more productive with your time... Weakopedia (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Calcott (car)
Hello Weakopedia. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Calcott (car), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No source of copyright provided. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Behringer
I've rolled-back your reversion of another contributers edits, as the edit in question was to correct the incorrect information that was not supported by the reference that was already provided. Thedarxide (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have undone your edit. I don't believe that the reference provided proves the claim that he has 'perfect pitch' and seems more anecdotal than anything. Do you have multiple reliable sources showing the validity of these claims? Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "My piano teacher quickly discovered that I had perfect pitch and gave me the nick name “The Ear” - the symbol that later became our company logo."The BEHRINGER Story 82.212.252.130 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a primary source, but either way, the Music Trades reference makes the same assertion. We're not in a position of "proving" it, but the source is reliable, therefore we can report it. Also, I don't appreciate your edit summary - not only is it a blatant untruth, but it's not polite either. Thedarxide (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You thought that was impolite? You really ought to get out more. The piece in Music Trades is a poorly reworked resume so all you have is a primary source and a single 20 year old article that relays it. Hardly seems enough for a BLP that is already considered to be of poor quality - considered that, of course ,because of the irresponsible POV pushers determined to defend Mr Behringer against goodness knows what.
 * It appears that you are using multiple accounts to make your edits - this is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia and the use of multiple accounts to aid you in an edit war would be a misuse of the community tools. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your accusation of sock puppetry is incredibly bad faith, and I suggest you either back it up or strike it out. There is nothing wrong with the music trades piece, and the only person with a crusade appears to be you.  I have reverted your edit for the final time - I will escalate the issue next time. Thedarxide (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Escalate away, as I have changed the article. It now reflects accurately the fact that you have no reliable secondary sources to verify these events. All you have is the story of Behringer which is in Uli's own words, and the piece from Music Trades. Music Trades are not a journal known for their independant fact checking or investigative work. They did not interview Uli's teacher, nor his classmates. They used no other sources other than Uli's words.
 * The only verifiable fact that you can arrive at is that Uli claimed his teacher said these things. You have his words on it, and you have those words repeated in a musical magazine. What you do not have is a reliable secondary source not connected to the subject reporting on these facts in a meaningful way.
 * Music Trades may consider Uli's words to be gospel but without reliable and independant secondary sources to back that up all you have is an opinion piece that confirms that Uli held such an opinion. You can say Uli claimed these things but you have no means to verify the things themselves. Therefore the insertion of Uli's opinion must be qualified as such, unconfirmed opinion. Weakopedia (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When Music Trade published their interview, they didn't write "Behringer *claims*...". It's an interview.  You report what was said, and we are doing the same. Thedarxide (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an interview. So what does that mean, overall? You have Uli's own biography in which he claims that these events occurred. You then have an interview with Uli in which he claims these events have occurred. What you do not have is a secondary source validating these claims. The biography allows you to say that Uli claimed these things. The interview allows to say that Uli claimed these things. But where is your source for these claims that is independant of Uli's words? Finding Uli's opinion twice doesn't cut it - the verifiability part only applies to the fact that Uli said these things, not that they happened. The article cannot then be left saying with authority that these events occurred, the article may only reflect what is verifiable - that Uli said these things. Like you say, it is an interview - you report what was said. You don't get to ascribe validity to any claims made however without reliable secondary sources independant of the subjects own words. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily
I'm sorry for the confusion as we were both simultaneously at work there and your note was certainly appropriate and called for. I wish I had thought to do so myself...and I'm finished (I think) for now. Thanks --JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an afterthought, but if your intent is to dispute the neutrality of the entire article, while I'm no authority, I believe Wikipedia recommends placing the tag at the top of the article and creating a "Dispute" section within talk stating the specific nature of the "neutrality" dispute so that other editors might comment. If it is your intent just to target the "neutrality" of that section alone, you can amend the tag to reflect that fact as a "section dispute" only.  If you are aware of this already, my apologies in advance for the seeming condescension.  Rgds --JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I was just looking at individual statements and seeing if they were sourced, or could be. The things that I verified as unsourced or original research I removed or modified, and I haven't looked at the sources for the other statements yet so I haven't a basis for adding a template yet. I don't know enough about the subject to say from looking only at the article that it is original research, I still have to do the work to find out. Thanks for the advice. Weakopedia (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies. I wrongly assumed that it was you who inserted the section tag along with your edit but, looking back at the history, I see now that is not the case. I'll discuss it with user 24.40.158.36 who actually inserted the tag a few days ago.  Again, my apologies. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for deleting the text I mistakenly inserted twice - we all make mistakes! Weakopedia (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate and support your recent edits of the WND article. However, as they appear to directly relate to the "POV" dispute previously initiated by User:24.40.158.36, perhaps you might consider moving your remarks to that specific section in support of that discussion?

Also, as you have, and I believe appropriately so, both noted and edited the article content for "WP:OR" shortcomings, perhaps you might also wish to consider appending an "OR" designation to the section dispute title (which user:24.40.158.36 neglected to do) and/or an "OR" tag to the article section itself should you deem it to be still deficient or worthy of further consideration in that regard. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh bother - I did what you asked about moving the comment. So, I was just looking and it seemed someone changed it back. And then I realise - I have the tab still open and forgot to save it after viewing the preview. I will try again.
 * PS so long as you don't change the words you can stick my comments where they would be most appropriate if you need to. I also checked the contribution record of that IP and this seems like the one interest they have developed - maybe a single purpose account, but in any event so long as the article gets improved I am easy. Weakopedia (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With your kind indulgence, I would never even consider moving someone else's comments, nor would I recommend your moving your own simply on my recommendation. However, for the sake of maintaining some sense of order to the discussions (and there are several "irons in the fire" in that regard right now), as long as you concur with my thoughts on the matter, your consideration is appreciated. rgds --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign bond
I reinserted nothing; I merely removed a separate piece of rather obvious vandalism. Upon closer inspection, you were right to remove what you did, but given that I didn't touch it (and the content has been there over five years, owch!), I'm not sure why you felt the need to warn me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC).

See your user page
Good Work! Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well thanks. I hit the 'Random article' button a lot and that's how I found WND, and it was in a sorry state. I am glad you think it is improving! Weakopedia (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of WND "Fact" Tag
I noted that you have removed the section dispute "Fact" tag I had placed within the WND "Controversy" section and have deleted the "unreliable" text and tag. May I ask your indulgence to please reconsider that edit? For several reasons?

As I mentioned in the WND discussion earlier, I am rather deeply involved in an RS/N directly related to the subject of WND "reliability" and the now-unsourced allegation of "unreliable" that you have deleted was serving quite effectively to demonstrate my contention that the "unreliable" assertion has little or no sourcing to substantiate that allegation. There should be no great rush to correct that rather glaring deficiency (it most certainly can attain some editorial consensus, one way or the other, in the immediate future) and I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your deletion in that light.

I am also of the opinion (and I'd daresay somewhat widely held within the Wikipedia community) that the immediate removal of text recently rendered "unsupported" by the challenge and/or removal of purportedly illegitimate sourcing is generally not good practice. As I stated earlier, editors who might support that "unreliable" WND characterization should be afforded a reasonable window of opportunity to defend and support the edit with appropriate citation & sourcing. The "citation needed" tag is both a petition and a courtesy to any editor who might be inclined to do so.

Also, and from a more genteel approach to dealing with tags in general, it is probably a better idea not to remove tags from an article placed by an editor or even possibly supported in its continued application by another editor (I'm losing track of who placed what & when) who is actively involved in a discussion of the relevant issue without first commenting on your intention within the active discussion related to that tag itself. Had you done so before removing it, I would have expressed my opinion that the tag is STILL warranted given the demonstrable shoddiness of the article composition.

There IS a method to the madness.

Whaddya think? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That section said that WND was unreliable, false and far-right. The false and far-right bits had sources and I haven't checked either of those to see if they are valid. What I felt was that saying unreliable was pretty much the same as saying false, certainly without a source to differentiate between the two. If the term unreliable had been something more markedly different to false I wouldn't have been so quick to remove it, but it felt like needless duplication regardless of the fact tag.
 * Having said that, I honestly didn't look to see how long the tag had been there, which I should have done. And I haven't read the RSN as I was more concerned about the obvious inaccuracies within the article itself. My edits were in good faith but if they interfere with an ongoing discussion or were premature please change any part of them you feel, and I resolve to take a look at the RSN. Weakopedia (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration. I do understand your thoughts and rationale behind your edits and I have no qualms at all about their legitimacy.  However, I'm not confident that I can simply revert your edit in totality without somehow impacting any unrelated edit you might have made subsequent to that.  Might I suggest that you revert it yourself and then re-incorporate any edits you deem warranted? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's no problem except I am on my way out so it won't be for a couple hours - the perils of Wikiediting vs. real life, but I really need milk! Weakopedia (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S....
 * The false and far-right bits had sources and I haven't checked either of those to see if they are valid.
 * Been there, done that. You could probably find enough purported RS for the "far-right" characterization to fill a good size book, but the "false" characterization (besides being just plain weird) leads, ultimately, to a newspaper blog's purported WND assertion in a purported "Human Events" advertisement that appears to be unlinked and unexaminable. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura
Hello, you just left me a note on original research with the message
 * Logic dictates that there are any number of medals he DIDN'T receive, but without a source describing that fact it is entirely non-notable.

"Logic dictating" isn't proof. Assuming it is, is original research. If you can find some proof and citation that he has won additional medals I would be happy to include it. = You further wrote
 * Adding the information without a source was against policy, but adding it twice is bordering on vandalsim.

Which is true, I have sourced the citation from citation from KMSP/FOX 9 Minneapolis if you can find an additional source please post it. If not do not vandalize the page by removing it.
 * Please do not edit any more material into the article that you do not have a source for. Thanks.

I haven't. Please do not remove any more material that has been sourced. Thank you. V7-sport (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport
 * What on earth are you talking about? You have provided a source - the source says the following.
 * National Defense Swervice Medal
 * Vietnam Service Medal
 * X
 * Where does it mention combat action ribbon?! Nowhere, that's where. Mentioning what medals he did not win without providing a source to say why that is relevant is original research at best, but your continued reinsertion is vandalism. Weakopedia (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert by RadManCF
I see your point. I reiterate that, at the time, the edit struck me as vandalism, and that I was on vandalism patrol, and am not interested in editing this article's content. I apologise for any problems this has caused. Regards, RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiona Weir
I was perhaps a little brusquer with her than I would be otherwise, since her efforts here are so clearly conflict of interest violations: i.e., writing about her father; and she doesn't seem to get why this is a problem here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that coming from Britain I had the advantage of knowing that her dad used to be extremely popular - I will try and improve the article if I can find the sources so the trouble of COI from the daughter does not come up again. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper warning
Hi there. I noticed your removal of my warning. You are right. What would you consider to be a more proper warning template to accompany this revert?. DVdm (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am also looking for that, I am not sure. I didn't find their test very funny either btw. Feel free to add something you think is better! Weakopedia (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took the test template. Cheers! DVdm (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just came to the same conclusion - better safe than sorry, I am guessing it won't be their last warning! Weakopedia (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Creation Myth
Weakopedia, I got your message. The word "myth" is a POV term and per NPOV cannot remain. NPOV is one of our pillars and is, by it's own definition, not changeable by consensus, vote, etc....   I have changed it twice today and will not touch it for the rest of the day. I belive my change is done per policy --- but I'm always open to talking about it! :) 17:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, however the article is called what it is called - without changing the title of the article it would be improper to change the lead section. There are many opinions on both sides of this particular debate, if you feel that the title displays a non-neutral POV you should open a discussion on the talkpage to change it. I am sure you will get a lot of input from other editors who agree with you! Weakopedia (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember is that the word myth may not (technically) be as bad as you think - here is a dictionary definition
 * a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
 * So from this point of view even if you believe that the entire story of Jesus is historically accurate the word myth still applies. It is possible that the title was chosen to address both 'sides' of the religion debate, although you will better gauge that by discussing it on the articles talkpage! Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Regarding the recent attacks made against you, if you wish to take appropriate action against the party in question, I have reams of evidence myself to include, as he's now graduated to the level of Wikistalking. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. I have replied over at Hipocrites talkpage rather than escalate matters, I am hoping that will be all that is required. Weakopedia (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff Discussion
Hi Weak, I think you have raised some good points about the problems with the Info Box on that article. I have added some comments and referenced some additional Wiki policies that I think the current Info Box contradicts. If you like you can follow up by visiting the article talk page. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey and thanks - it's great to have outside input. I don't even know much about Peter Schiff, but for me that is the point. I went to the article not with an agenda but to learn. When I go to an article for whatever reason I check a few sources while I am there to make sure it all fits, but without sources I can't do that. With a subject I know little about I then have to go and research off-wiki before I can be sure of what is on-wiki, and that can't be encyclopedic, especially on a BLP of a (however moderately) contentious subject. Thanks again, I'll reply over at the article later on, the guys there seem to be taking it all a bit personal! Weakopedia (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been several contentious issues on the talk page lately so I've been letting the Info Box slide, but plan to bring it up and take it to BLPN if the talk page discussion doesn't resolve it. It's OR and a misuse of the Info Box in my opinion but I'm open to other views as Wiki is always a learning process. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely AfD
Interesting, thanks. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, yes! I haven't gone through the history to see if they really were oversighted, but they certainly don't form a part of the conversation anymore. And with undue weight being (however unintentionally) given to vote counts by statements like this it makes it especially important to not refactor others comments and thereby maintain the flow of conversation and not just leave the votes to count. Though that is just my opinion :) Weakopedia (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Love your work!
Keep it up. --Vimbo Gales (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Weakopedia (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Collins
Hi Weak, thanks for the comments on the RfC. I wouldn't have gone to the trouble so quickly but the two particular editors are not easy to have a give and take with. Especially this fellow:. So I'd appreciate it if you would stick around. I am going to get back with the references. Thanks so much, Malke  2010  16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. You really have got a problem with at least one editor who is rather unpleasant, and that makes it hard for anyone wanting to participate. It is that sort of behaviour that got the article put on probation in the first place.


 * Specifically when you added the category of Irish Revolutionaries, you had one editor who responded on talk by saying that it was already in a subcategory of that (which may or may not be the right thing to do), but then another editor who simply reverted you with the summary "no he isn't" which is neither accurate nor helpful.


 * I have only interest in fairly representing the sources - if you find reliable sources to show that Collins' religion was notable then it should be in the article.


 * One thing to remember is that while most, if not all, Irish Republicans are Catholic, it is not so that all Irish Revolutionaries are fighting for religious beliefs. Catholics were traditionally persecuted, but the event that led to that persecution was the occupation of Ireland, so that persecution could be seen as a symptom of the occupation.


 * Whilst Irish Revolutionaries are mostly Catholic, their aim is not to secure a Catholic Ireland, but to secure an Irish Ireland - that is to say they want the British out, but they are happy to live alongside people of other religions.


 * That is why the sourcing is important in this case - it is not controversial to say that Collins was Catholic, but the strict inclusion criterea for that infobox mean we need to source the fact as if it were controversial.


 * I will take a look through my library to see if I can find anything as I have many books from the early part of the last century which cover political events involving Britain and Ireland, and it is possible I have something relevant, although I can't promise that will turn up anything. Hopefully you can find something online first, with online links to look at it makes it harder for difficult editors to revert your contributions. Weakopedia (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Weak, I've added some sources over on Michael Collins' talk page. Also, you are correct about the unpleasantness over there.  This was posted on my talk page  I can see why the article got put on probation.  I've emailed to Ireland to get more sources, especially for newspaper articles, etc. that might be online.


 * The slant of the article seems as if the goal is to suppress Collins' Catholicism which in Ireland is not at all in dispute. His memorial still gets vandalized on holidays for his signing off on the Free State, but other than that, he's still loved.  And you are correct in that the Irish don't mind other religions.  When I was a kid, we had Protestant neighbors/playmates, and other than the fact that we went to separate schools, it didn't seem a problem for anybody, especially the kids. The real problem on that was in the Belfast.  We didn't have the British Army camped out where we lived. Malke  2010  18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That page is a minefield. It is difficult to present ideas there and have them properly considered. Also that infobox is problematic - the criterea aren't as strict as some editors seem to prefer. I think you have done enough work to show that Collins was Catholic, and you have come up with several sources. So, my advice is forget about the infobox just now, and instead use the sources you have found to write a short piece about Collins' religion in the main article.
 * His religion is obviously important so it should be in the article, but - well, let me put it this way. One of the sources you quote says that Collins was raised Catholic, that he didn't practice Catholicism so much in later years, but that the last three years of his life brought a renewed commitment to the church. If the only thing on Collins' wikipage about his religion is the infobox, then the average reader will be no better off for reading it as they won't get a true picture of how religion affected Collins.
 * So my advice is to write up the sources you have and include something about religion in the main article. Once the article talks about his religion it will be much easier to work on the template. Remember the infobox is only for notable Catholics - if his Catholicism is notable, it really should be discussed in the article first. So just add a short piece about religion to the main article and then use that to argue for inclusion in the template. I think the main problem is just a few editors who are strictly misinterpreting the guidelines for that infobox, but if you can establish notability in the article they won't have anything left to say. Weakopedia (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. But what if they just delete it?  The editors there seem to think only they can decide what gets included.  And I think something should be said to the ones with the WP:CIVIL issues, especially this one:.


 * Also, I don't see a message about the article being on probation. If it is, why isn't there a message about it? Malke  2010  21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One other thing: the criteria is not that his Catholicism is notable, it's that it's related to his notability. Right there, courtesy of Henry VIII, is the reason Collins' Catholicism is related to his notability as an Irish Revolutionary. Malke  2010  21:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If they remove well-cited information from the article then you can do something about it - right now they are a bit rude, you have a disagreement over category interpretation, but they aren't deleting citations. If you do the work, and they undo it, it will be all the more clear who has the agenda here, and will be easier to remedy that.

Did I mistake it's probation status? I really thought it was under probation - oh well, civility is important whether it is under probation or not. I guess I am interested in too many things that are under probation.

And yes, you are correct that it says his religions should be related to his notability, which in fact probably means that what you wish to include is fine, especially if you write it up first in the main article. I would say that the best thing is to make sure the article documents his religious status (which is obviously important) and then try again to edit the infobox. Weakopedia (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Weak. I'll do that. Malke  2010  15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)