User talk:Wikidudeman/Archive 8

No program
No, I just copy-and-paste an article (in this case: Helpt) and replace the names. These are the "easy" ones that don't need disambiguation. Markussep Talk 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not good, you mixed Neverin up with Zirzow, but I fixed it. But this is basically it. If you like to help, please go ahead! And take a look at the project page: WikiProject Germany/Cities. Markussep Talk 15:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The ones I checked were OK, thanks! After I've checked the next district for ambiguity issues, I'll let you know. Markussep Talk 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still checking Müritz, I've come as far as Krukow now (starting from A). You can start there, or wait until I'm done. Markussep Talk 15:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I check whether there is already an article with the same name, and I check whether there are more municipalities (most likely in Germany, Austria, Switzerland) with the same name. I do the latter using German wikipedia. Markussep Talk 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, go ahead! Markussep Talk 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm checking the municipalities in Nordvorpommern right now. When I'm done, I'll let you know, so you can fill in the red links. AWB might be a good idea. Markussep Talk 17:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Done with Nordvorpommern and Nordwestmecklenburg! Markussep Talk 18:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * About AWB, have you tried using ? This inserts the article name. Markussep Talk 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks OK!Markussep Talk 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Only Nordvorpommern. The manual checks take some time, might take a while. Markussep Talk 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fast! Markussep Talk 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ostvorpommern and others probably tomorrow. I'm finishing my AWB work on the templates. Markussep Talk 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've finished Ostvorpommern, and Parchim up to Lübz. Markussep Talk 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed something about all the AWB edits you made (I didn't check them all, but in all articles I checked it was the case): you used instead of  . That way, the template is not substituted in the saved version, check "edit this page" for Glewitz, for instance. Please fix this. Markussep Talk 08:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done with Parchim. Markussep Talk 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done with Rügen and Uecker-Randow, go ahead. Markussep Talk 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, we're fast! Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is finished, I think I'll continue with Saxony-Anhalt next. I'll let you know when I have a district ready, maybe tomorrow. Markussep Talk 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Saxony-Anhalt
I finished this one quicker than I expected: Altmarkkreis Salzwedel. You can use Benkendorf as a model municipality. Markussep Talk 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anhalt-Bitterfeld and Börde done, you can use Reuden and Born, Saxony-Anhalt as model municipalities. Markussep Talk 12:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Burgenlandkreis done. Markussep Talk 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Harz and Jerichower Land done. Markussep Talk 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mansfeld-Südharz and Saalekreis done. Markussep Talk 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Stendal and Wittenberg done (User:Phgao got ahead of you on Salzlandkreis). Markussep Talk 20:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein
Now that Saxony-Anhalt is almost done (could you finish Wittenberg?), I'm starting with Schleswig-Holstein. I just checked Dithmarschen, so go ahead... Markussep Talk 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK: for Wittenberg Ragösen, for Ditmarschen Burg, Dithmarschen. Markussep Talk 19:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauenburg done, model: Basedow, Schleswig-Holstein. Markussep Talk 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nordfriesland done, model: Drage, Nordfriesland.Markussep Talk 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ostholstein done (small one), model: Dahme, Schleswig-Holstein. Markussep Talk 11:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pinneberg done, model: Bevern, Schleswig-Holstein. Markussep Talk 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Plön done, model: Warnau. Markussep Talk 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rendsburg-Eckernförde done, model: Westensee. Markussep Talk 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Schleswig-Flensburg done, model: Treia, Germany. Markussep Talk 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Segeberg done, model: Bark, Germany. Markussep Talk 18:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And finished the last two: Steinburg (model: Breitenberg, Schleswig-Holstein) and Stormarn (model: Elmenhorst, Stormarn). Markussep Talk 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thuringia
Thanks for the barnstar! Seeing all these blue links is a nice reward as well. I've started working on Thuringia now, districts of Altenburger Land (model: Wintersdorf) and Gotha (model: Apfelstädt). Markussep Talk 16:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Greiz done, model Braunsdorf. Markussep Talk 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hildburghausen done, model: Milz. Markussep Talk 13:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ilm-Kreis done, model: Dornheim. Markussep Talk 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Kyffhäuserkreis done, model: Badra, Germany. Markussep Talk 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nordhausen done, model: Kraja, Germany. Markussep Talk 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Saale-Holzland done, model: Albersdorf, Thuringia. Markussep Talk 18:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Saale-Orla-Kreis done, model: Blankenberg, Thuringia. Markussep Talk 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Saalfeld-Rudolstadt done, model: Allendorf, Thuringia. Markussep Talk 19:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And the last one, Schmalkalden-Meiningen done, model: Queienfeld. Markussep Talk 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi, we're finished with creating municipality articles, but now we're adding infoboxes to all the articles. See WikiProject Germany/Cities for more info. Markussep Talk 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Input requested
Your input is requested here. Thank you. --profg 20:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New try at homeopathy intro
To all involved: please see "My two cents" edit of homeopathy intro here

Friarslantern 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

monobook
I tried to add your nice monobook, but it doesnt seem to work as when I go to a page with admins it does not highlight them, as it says "Highligts all administrators on talk pages in cyan ". This is probably just me, but I did copy it straight. Can you please have a look? Phgao 11:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I find your 500 edits to Anabolic steroid‎ quite impresive! Phgao 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you did. Try holding "Shift" and pressing reload to clear your cache.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tick. Thanks! The only thing I find annoying is to click that tab to find discussion and to edit discussion you have to go back to that tab. But I'll give it a test for a bit. Phgao 23:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambig
Can you advise me on how to set up a disambiguation for O&W to sort Ollech & Wajs from New York, Ontario and Western Railway? Thanks. - LuckyLouie 06:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those fixes, and the info. - LuckyLouie 20:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
You recently commented on Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Your input would be appreciated: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration ScienceApologist 21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Do you really think your latest idea at Talk:Homeopathy is going to help? I mean, we're dealing with Homeopathy POV-warriors, with Homeopathy often being said to be near the level of a cult for some.

I suspect all we're going to get is more of the same. Vanished user talk 15:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We shall see. Please try to contribute to the best of your ability. Let's also avoid all arguments about the actual efficacy of homeopathy. Let's sick to Wikipedia policy discussions and discussions of the sources directly.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I suspect it's going to end in a repetition of every argument from the last few days, however fallacious, repeated all over again.
 * Anyway, the only real problem I see is poor wording in the history section. Vanished user talk 16:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see a problem with the article that is purely grammatical and you don't think will cause any disputes or reverts then please just edit it yourself. I don't want to cause everyone to fear that any edit to the article will result in an edit war.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Weel, it's not strictly grammatical - it's more the phrasing implying that controversial concepts are right. It's subtle, but, well, first section. Have to get it right. Vanished user talk 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid
diff - Congratulations! Tim Vickers 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
I just replied. Hope it helps! Vanished user talk 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, congrats on Anabolic steroid. It was a long process, but it's now, quite deservedly, got there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Advisor.js
Sorry for my late reply, I had abandoned my contributions here in Wikipedia for quite some time, though I often use it read-only. I tested my script in Firefox and it still looks ok, so you must be using Internet Explorer or Opera? I will be able to test with IE tomorrow evening. You can save me some time by telling me what OS/browser version you are using. --Cameltrader 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I use firefox. Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MFD Results
A MFD you recently participated in, arguing to keep the content has been closed with a non-standard closure, requiring additional action to maintain the content. Please review my closing and participate with the required move action if you desire. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I argued to delete, not keep.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle Questions
Hey&mdash;you helped me out a bit earlier, so I figure you can help. Currently, I am running a combination of AzaToth's TW, and your speedy fuction. Up until recently, it was working fine functionally, but not cosmetically. When I do the CSD, the box that pops up does not display any text; just a blue box, but still tags for deletion. So I decided that was annoying, and reverted back to AzaToth's version. However, I remembered that it autowarns users of the speedy deletion, something I disliked. So, I was wondering. Is there a way to make it so that I have the dialog as usual and does not notify users automatically? As a non-speedy related note, I would like the refresh time to be removed. I tried adding Wikipedia.actionCompleted.timeOut = wpActionCompletedTimeOut || 1000; but that doesn't work. I'd also like rounded corners. Any chance you can help me out? If not, that's ok too. My monobook. i said 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. I'm currently using your (in your userspace) version that was the old speedy fuction for twinkle, not your own script. I do want to notify users, but I don't want to use the autowarn. I'd rather not user your hodgepodge (although it is full of good features) because I don't want all of them. i said 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Use:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * And test either:
 * []
 * or
 * []
 * One of the last two should remove the automatic warnings when using the CSD script.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

pov
I dont see why the Under dispute sign should not be there ? Please explain why not.iut does not hurt your work which I respect as you know. --Sm565 02:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Www.ultimate-anonymity.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Www.ultimate-anonymity.com Www.ultimate-anonymity.com I've placed a "AFD" tag on this page. But the "only other author" of the page removed it without reaching consensus. Please provide a third opinion on it's talk page. Mugunth 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are all a bunch a fascist MORONS. www.WikipediaSUCKS.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.20.119 (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead
I think it was useful to cut the chaff, since once I was able to see the core of it, it was obvious that some important ideas were missing, which I then added.

I think it is helpful to remove random information, since too much unimportant detail can conceal the lack of genuinely important parts, and missing steps in the logical chain.

In other words, I support additional information in the lead, but don't think we were choosing what information to add very well. Vanished user talk 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can add the prevalence and legal trends data to the lead when there doesn't seem to be any coherent worldwide trends. It'd just work out to a lot of statements on the lines of "Some countries X, other countries don't." Rest might be practical. Vanished user talk 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good try, but...
It was a good try, but it didn't really hold together - it felt tacked on, and had no flow. Let's agree that more should be added, but take some time to do it right, choosing what to work in.

Also, realise that WP:LEAD is a suggestion: A lot of the really long articles, like Evolution, can't include information from every section or heading, so just present the most important ones. Vanished user talk 15:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you say that it did not flow. I think that it flowed well. I spent a while working on it and I think that the least that could be done is you could change it around until you think it flows better opposed to simply removing it all.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Homeopaths use a wide variety of prepared substances such as calcium sulfide and belladonna in an attempt to relieve symptoms. The prevalence of Homeopathy varies widely from country to country ranging as high as 25-50 percent in Europe<, to less than 2 percent in the United States.


 * I forget how many substances are generally used in homeopathy today, but know it hit about 250 in 1905. So just choosing a random two substances doesn't really help. We need to say what common types are used; say, minerals and botanicals, or, failing that, just keep silent about it. Similarly, I don't know of a single featured article that quotes statistics in the lead. Some talk about majorities and minorities, but numerical statistics?
 * When writing short summaries, you have to include the most relevant and basic information. Simply put, this wasn't the most relevant or basic information. Vanished user talk 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well feel free to get rid of those details and statistics then. We can find another way to do it. However I've rewrote the part I initially added and made it a separate paragraph so that it flows better.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing RfAs
Just a few things about your close of Requests for adminship/Kornfan71. Do remember to remove the transclusion from WP:RFA. Also, it isn't a good idea to close RfAs you comment on - I think you should have opposed the RfA or closed it, but not both. Finally, its usually expected that when informing a candidate that their RfA has been closed per WP:SNOW, some advice and encouragement will be given. Failing RfA can be very demotivating - we don't want editors leaving the project as a result. Anway, just a few things to bear in mind if you're considering closing an RfA in future... WjBscribe 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate the advice. I will take it into consideration if I decide to close other RFA's in the future. That was my first one.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, don't mark them as having failed if they've been withdrawn early, and use the date that the RfA was closed, not when it was due to close. I corrected the details at Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/K. If you're going to get involved in closing RfAs prematurely (and WjBscribe already voiced my concerns about it), I'd recommend reading (and referencing) Bureaucrats, as that's the "official" documentation for doing so (or you can use my cheat sheet at User:EVula/admin). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look into those links and use your cheat cheat next time. I've added it to my "useful stuff" page  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed
Could someone please help me identify the deprecated templates that exist on my main user page? I would like to update or remove them however I don't know how to identify which ones are deprecated. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. I will try to do it. But what do you want to do exactly? Martial BACQUET 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to update the depreciated templates to what they are supposed to be. I would like my userpage to look the same though. Just get the templates updated.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your templates are up to date. I don't understand what you want to do. Could you come on IRC channel to talk about that? Martial BACQUET 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know what depreciated templates are?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know, but on your user page they are your own templates, aren't they? So you can modify them when you want. For example, this template: is on your user page and is depreciated. You just have to replace it by the new one. Martial BACQUET 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you help me replace the Template in my userpage with this?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try. Martial BACQUET 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think it is impossible to use this extension to display an image "in title" because this extension is to create a link while clicking on the image but also display the image informations. I think it is useless to do it on images which are displayed in title. I hope you will find how to do, but I can't do it myself. You can ask for it on the technical village pump. Again sorry. Martial BACQUET 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can also try it:


 * How about getting the "Users using depreciated templates" tag removed from the bottom? Is that possible?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done Martial BACQUET 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want the "No cat" showing. I also would like to keep the "This is a userpage" tag at the bottom.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it correct now? Martial BACQUET 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be. Thank you!  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig's RFC
I added my name to the list of editors who have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. I agree with your characterization of the situation, but I have one small quibble. His first RFC was in 2005, not a few months ago as asserted here. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Fixed.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt
In refernce to the page on ancient egyptians. Your not going to convice taharqa or the other editors on his team to concide on any point of "Blacks" being the ancient egyptians. One of my queeries about the placment of the article within the African Deaspora lead me to the actual page. Its a all "Black" dude no mention about of the other native peoples like morrocons and what not. Taharqa asked me my name and I came off a bit odd. My name is Repasy Litterally Hamin at Rea HaminOtep Seti. MY familly founded the egyptian empire even the word egypt is a play on my famillies name. I don't consider myself today to be the stereotypicall "ethnic" egyptian. The editors you are dealing with, Taharqa and the rest, have latched themselves unto a subject they believe will make them empowered and feal better about themself. They're in a hole they dug for themselves, they are litterally clinging for their life and pride. They are hopeless to say the least. Asiade from praying to saint jude maybe. Just a heads up before you waste to much time through diplomace.--207.14.129.123 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Information needed
Hello Wikidudeman, sorry for disturbing your work, but I need some clarification. I noticed that you work on 3RR board, recently I filled 3RR case  however it was moved into archive without response. So now I am in quite uncomfortable situation, because I do not know if there was violation of 3RR and if there was no violation I would like to know, because it is the only the way I can learn from my mistakes and not repeat them in the future. As well it seems like same contributor  found other place for reverts. So could you please just inform me there was 3RR violation in my presented original case or note. Thank you in advance, M.K. 11:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a violation of 3rr. File it again.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. M.K. 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Help
helpme

Can someone please help me figure out how to add a template(or even a wrapup script) to my talk page so that it ALWAYS remains on the bottom of the talk page regardless of new edits being added? For instance a template such as or a script wrap up such as. I would like them to stay at the bottom of my talk page, even if new edits are added. Is there a code that can do this? Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in the general case. The software automatically adds closing tags like &lt;/div> at the bottom of the page to balance out tags, at present, so you can use that to automatically close your div. As for causing information to appear at the bottom of the page no matter where in the page it appears (which would be sufficient for editor review), I think there might be a hacky CSS way to do this, but I don't know what it is; you might want to ask at the technical village pump. I don't think any other cases of causing information to appear at the bottom are possible. --ais523 14:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to remain asking for help to get some more input on that. I've seen codes where editors keep such templates at the bottom of their talk pages so I'm pretty sure that it can be done. I'll ask the technical village pump if I don't get some other input. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This code from the Help Desk Header generates a "Return to the top" link that remains anchored at the bottom of the page. Depending on the size of the box, it may overlap other text, however.

 Back to the top
 * I hope this helps. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

something went wrong
see this. Agathoclea 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that the only mistake? I must have forgot to remove that from the list.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't guarantee it is the only mistake as I did not check your contributions in any detail. It had appeared on my watchlist. I now deleted the page. Agathoclea 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the only one. Thanks for the notice.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

barnstar
Thank you! Lugnuts 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

CSS div
You had  instead of. That would be the cause of the problem. The clear declaration forces an element to clear the elements above it.  Adrian  M. H.  19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW/My RFA
I wasn't doing that WP:SNOW thing, so whether you take action or not, nothing's going to happen. Hyper Sonic  Boom  20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As a mediator
Hi Wikidudeman,

As a neutral mediator between myself and ScienceApologist, I'm wondering if you could give me an update on your efforts to foster reconciliation. I apologized to him for my wrong in assuming he knew all the factors which influenced my talk page, and as a result, calling him a vandal. I'm sure you are in the process of trying (probably by email, since I see nothing on his talk page) to elicit an similar acknowledgment from him concerning the way he has treated me. I just would like an update as to how things are coming. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I've been busy. You're my main concern and attempting to elicit an apologetic response in you was my main goal as I believe that alone would help ease the situation the most. I think that any problems could be immediately fixed between the two of you if you were to take the initiative, so he is not a concern of mine.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks. Any personal problems are very minor.  Mostly, I think we just feel that the other's editing habits and understanding of NPOV and other policies are incorrect.  Nothing personal ever happened before the edits on my talk page.  Except I guess he's called me a few things- like a liar or whatever. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've apologized for assuming bad faith and insulting him, now it's time to move on. Just discontinue any further discourse and try to assume good faith and refrain from insults in the future. I've also asked him to apologize.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we edit the same articles, so discontinuing discourse is not a realistic option. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean on that subject. The subject of your template.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. I see what you mean. No reason to discuss that anymore unless it comes up in the ArbCom. —— Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool Username
Hey, i like your username Look Left &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Left u Idiot !!! 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC/User regarding Whig and all participants
Would you like to consider withdrawing this RfC? Whig 08:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Image
Dear mister Wikidudeman, I would like to ask you something about the article of "Nordic Theory". A little time ago I was browsing the particular article and there was picture of a blond nordic man that was wearing the uniform of the waffen ss. I believe that in was something like a poster of the waffen ss. It was similar to this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Nordic_race.jpg but not the same. Unfortunately today I noticed that the particular particular picture was missing, probably because someone removed it while editing the article. I contacted the user Paul Barlow and he suggested me to come in touch with you since you were the one that had contributed the picture I'm looking for. I would be really grateful if you could help me with this issue. Thanks a lot in advance.

Tobbie10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobbie10 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for the image. I would be really grateful if you could help me. Apart from that any extra about it would be welcome, but what I need is the image. Thank you very much for your patience.

Greetings, Tobbie10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobbie10 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing serious, I'm just interested about the history of Europe and the history of European races. This picture was a great example of Nordic man.

Your help is appreciated
Your help is appreciated my friend. If you could give me a better quality one like the version that was once featured in the article it would be really great. Thanks for your help. --Tobbie10 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

These pictures are very interesting as well. Although, I was just looking for the picture which was once featured in the article. I would appreciate it if you could give me a better quality version of it. Thanks a lot in advance. --Tobbie10 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ι believe this is the pic I was looking for. Thanks. --Tobbie10 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What's up, yo?
Hey, Thank you! P.S., What do you mean on behalf of Geometry guy? He doesn't have access to a computer or something?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * She means that I am not into barnstars. However, if you would like to be enrolled in the somewhat tongue-in-cheek and non-pc Wikipedian knightly order, I'd be happy to award you a suitable title. Such titles mean nothing at RfAs, but they mean a great deal to those of us who are passionate about content and honorable conduct. Geometry guy 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks quite interesting. Give me a title that you think best fits all of my editing habits. Be sure to look into my previous contributions using this tool.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sm565 and Homeopathy
WDM, you need to do the same thing for Sm565 that was done with Whig. Sm565 is a single-topic editor, who's tendentious editing of Talk:Homeopathy and the article itself. The constant placing of a POV tag is it. I would get together an RfC, but my ability to write them out is not as advanced as yours. I'll help out as necessary. I actually think that Sm565 is a rather pathetic individual. Whig is mean spirited. But what do I know, I'm just an MD with a REAL medical degree from a REAL university, with numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals, several years in the United States Navy as an officer (and a gentleman usually), and managing research projects for major medical device companies. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me a few days to investigate it and then I'll make a determination on the best course of action.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if the following doesn't convince you:


 * Edit #1
 * Edit #2
 * Edit #3
 * Of course this happened after being blocked for doing this previously. I'm so sick of it, I might do it if you don't.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me some time.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks!
I don't know what else to say! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
for the *! Phgao 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Hi Wikidudeman and thanks for the barnstar --Cailil  talk 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation
This is to let you know that I appreciate your question in the homeopathy discussion.

quote What were you referring to, Filll? What did Wanderer57 do? endquote.

Thank you. Wanderer57 07:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hodgepodge
Hey WDM,

FYI, I tried re-installing HP last night on my mac running FF. For some reason it just didn't let me edit - the edit window loaded and I could only type in the subject line. I don't know if this is systemic, a single page, or what, I ended up reverting to popups.

I had mentioned HP to one of my adoptees (User:Andy pyro), but he appears to have gone with popups as well. I don't know why and I haven't heard from him in a while. WLU 14:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey WDM,
 * FYI, Hodgepodge does work on FF at home, and rather well! I wish I could install it at work.  Very useful, lots of great features that I'm sure I'm hardly tapping into.  WLU 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem - if I try to edit an article, I have to fiddle with it - usually press the spacebar before I can type anything. It's almost impossible to edit a page that doesn't have a previous section I can edit (i.e. I can't edit using the top tab, I have to use the section edit feature).  WLU 01:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by "fiddle with it" and what do you mean by "top tab"? Do you mean the "Edit" tab at the top or the "0" tab for editing the lead section?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm able to edit pages without additional subsections. Just go to the pagenav bar, click "edit" and it will let you edit.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I add a new entry to a page using the '+' tab at the top, it gives me a blank edit pane. I can edit the find box, but it will not let me type anything in the edit pane itself - no letters appear.  If I edit an existing section through a section edit, I can only type if I first go to previously existing text and hit the space bar.  Otherwise, the cursor does not appear and the keys I hit have no effect.  I've been editing sections and using the 'space' workaround, but if it's a completely blank page (i.e. a redlink or new user), I can't do anything.  It's quite strange and I don't understand why it doesn't work.  Possibly a mac/FF-specific problem.  This doesn't really bother me since I'm basically testing HP as a favour and will eventually go back to popups (though I'm enjoying it, it's a good script), I don't even know if you can do anything about it.


 * By the way, the '0' tab is the best thing in the world, I hate having to edit the whole page if I want to edit the lead. WLU 11:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the problem could be. I don't even know what exactly you're describing. However here is a suggestion: See the little pencil and screen at the very top right of the screen? Try clicking it and it should turn gray. See if that helps.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely by accident, I somehow managed to do exactly that on the last edit before this one :) I'll try it again the next new page I edit.  The extra bar of tools disappeared and I could edit normally.  Huzzah!  I'll keep testing it over the next couple weeks.  WLU 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. That is the "WikEd" tool which adds various attributes beneficial for editing but isn't really required. I have a hunch however that the specific way you might be editing could be causing the problem.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome onboard !
Thank you for joining WP:TIMETRACE, please visit WP:TIMETST and WP:TIMETGD for understanding how we work. Usually the best is to have the project templates handy and add these to your daily edit routines. But give a look at the pages I indicated and find out the best way for you  Dao ken  18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar?
Thanks, but... what did I do to earn that? I'm just stumbling along in this ol' vale of tears, like the rest of us, trying to make the 'Pedia a better place. -- Orange Mike 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!
'Cause you deserve it!


 * Thanks!  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Impressed
As painful as it has been, I have to admit that I am steadily more and more impressed with the progress on the homeopathy article. It is starting to look more and more NPOV. The writing is looking good. My only complaint is that we have not got an extensive discussion of the X, D, Q, LM etc scales, which could go in a footnote or in another article. I think we have some seriously pro-homeopathy people still who are lobbying to remove negative material. I understand where they are coming from, but they do not understand the principles of WP. We cannot write articles that are just promotional materials for some treatment, especially something like homeopathy (even standard medical treatments are not described in totally positive terms here of course beause that is not helpful to a reader trying to evaluate them).--Filll 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * True. It's important to stay the course even if it seems totally futile when dealing with articles such as this. It's also important to remember that disputes will come up in the future, even if we do everything right. That's just how it works. POV pushers will come and they will fight, but it's important to keep our cool and remember that This too shall pass.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place for confusing tag
Please reconsider your tag in the middle of an article on Japanese nengō. Of course a few sentences taken out of context in the middle of a comparatively technical article will appear confusing. In order for this template of a page, please review: If you have similarly tagged any other Japanese era pages, please remove your handiwork. In my view, this is not helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me. --Ooperhoofd 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC) - - - - - - - I tagged it because the sentence "The new era name was created because ____________. " makes no sense in any context. Because what? What is supposed to be filled in?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanische Zeitrechnung und Liste der Nengō
 * en:Japanese era names
 * Éres du Japon
 * Here are two examples:
 * Wadō gannen (和銅元年; 708): The new era name Wadō (meaning "Japanese copper") was created because the metal was discovered in Musashi province. The previous era ended and the new one commenced in the spring of Keiun 5, on the 11th day of the 1st month of 708.  The Japanese word for copper is dō (銅); and since this was indigenous copper, the "wa" (the ancient Chinese term for Japan) could be combined with the "dō" (copper) to create a new composite term -- "wadō" -- meaning "Japanese copper."  The Wadō era is famous for the first Japanese coin (和同開珎, wadokaiho/wadokaichin).-- see image of Wado Kaichin from Japan Mint Museum
 * Hōreki 1 (宝暦元年; October 27, 1751): The new era of Hōreki (meaning "Valuable Calendar" or "Valuable Almanac") was said to have been created to mark the death of the retired Emperor Sakuramachi and the death of the former Shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune. The previous era could be said to have ended and the new era is understood to have commenced in Kan'en 4, on the 27th day of the 10th month; however, this nengō was promulgated retroactively.  The Keikō Kimon records that the calendar was amended by Imperial command, and the era was re-named Hōreki on December 2, 1754, which then would have become 19th day of the 10th month of the 4th year of Hōreki.
 * Again -- I think your attention to detail, while admirable in a broad sense, is wrong here because the nengō ARE confusing.


 * The better questions for me to ask are these:
 * Was I Wiki-wrong to use a blank line _____________________, since that is what seemed to attract your attention?
 * Would I have been better advised to use something like this [ . . . . . . . . ]?
 * Your comments and suggestions can help me avoid similar misunderstandings in future. --Ooperhoofd 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikidudeman -- YES, this is not simple. The line is an invitation (or perhaps a reminder) that there is something other than the kanji themselves -- an intention in the selection of an era name. I'm working with three sources which only occasionally mention this trivial data item.


 * 13TH CENTURY -- Brown, Delmer and Ichiro Ishida, eds. (1979). [ Jien (1221)], Gukanshō; "The Future and the Past: a translation and study of the 'Gukanshō,' an interpretive history of Japan written in 1219" translated from the Japanese and edited by Delmer M. Brown & Ichirō Ishida. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-03460-0
 * 17TH CENTURY -- Titsingh, Isaac, ed. (1834). [Siyun-sai Rin-siyo, 1652], Nipon o daï itsi ran; ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon, tr. par M. Isaac Titsingh avec l'aide de plusieurs interprètes attachés au comptoir hollandais de Nangasaki; ouvrage re., complété et cor. sur l'original japonais-chinois, accompagné de notes et précédé d'un Aperçu d'histoire mythologique du Japon, par M. J. Klaproth. Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland.--Two digitized examples of this rare book have now been made available online: (1) from the library of the University of Michigan, digitized January 30, 2007; and (2) from the library of Stanford University, digitized June 23, 2006.  Click here to read the original text in French.
 * 14TH CENTURY -- Varley, H. Paul, ed. (1980). [Kitabatake Chitafusa, 1359], Jinnō Shōtōki ("A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns: Jinnō Shōtōki of Kitabatake Chikafusa" translated by H. Paul Varley). New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04940-4


 * MORE INFORMATION ON JAPANESE ERA NAMES: National Diet Library, "The Japanese Calendar" -- historical overview plus illustrative images from library's collection
 * Look, I'm just asking you not to place that tag on these articles. I've given you precise, specific answers and you don't seem be taking it in. I just want to get back to what I was doing. --Ooperhoofd 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikidudeman -- I have a constructive thought: What about this? Will this modification (in lieu of a line) satisfy your plausible concerns?  For example, this era name was created to mark the beginning of a new sovereign's reign. Fact -- but there are further deliberately poetic levels of intended meaning in the choice of an era name.  Sometimes political?  Sometimes hortatory?  Sometimes palliative?
 * Reiki gannen (霊亀元年; 715): The new era name Reiki (meaning ". . . .") was created to mark the beginning of the reign of Empress Genshō. The previous era ended and the new one commenced in Wadō 8, on the 3rd day of the 9th month of 715.  [BOLD added here for Wikidudeman only]
 * Will you be dissatisfied with the following method of indicating that something is missing? --Ooperhoofd 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're finished here. You have been non-responsive. If you add furhter tags to nengō articles, I'll consider it vandalism and I'll promptly remove them.  This has been a waste of time.  I feel that I was wrong to have responded as if you were a colleague.  Feel free to make your views known more fully in the context of Japanische Zeitrechnung and Liste der Nengō; however, I must tell you that your contribution here has seemed unhelpful.--Ooperhoofd 17:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't insult or threaten me. I've been responding to you here on your talk page. Let me say it again. Using a Blank line such as "_____" in place of something that you don't know or have no source for is not encyclopedic. For instance if I am writing an article about the planet Mars I can't say "Mars is ___ Years old." as that doesn't make sense from an encyclopedic standpoint. If you don't have the info then don't allude to it in the text. Using a blank line to signify lack of information isn't how articles are written.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have just removed all of my comments regarding this situation on your talk page, so I know that you're aware of my comments. Asserting that I have been "Non responsive" is simply untrue.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikidudeman: I have removed all lines from hundreds of pages. You have what you wanted.  Let's leave it at that.
 * I see no point in trying to explain because you've demonstrated already that you either cannot  understand ... or maybe you simply refuse to understand.  In effect, nothing I tried to share in this meaningless exchange produced any response related to do with Japanese nengō; ergo, you were "non-responsive."  Under other circumstances, I'd try harder to explain conventional American English usage -- but not in this instance.  Even as I offer you the following link, I suspect the gesture is likely to be meaningless:
 * University of Tübingen -- -- German nengō conversion web site
 * Do you see my point? You've presented yourself as an unwanted annoyance. It didn't have to be that way; but there we have it.
 * Thank you for your work in improving Wikipedia. Clearly, every man's contribution deserves to be applauded.  So let's just agree on this: You were right and I was wrong -- end of discussion.
 * Now let me get back to something which seems to me more congenial. --Ooperhoofd 21:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr... My reason for placing the tags was clearly stated from the start. It was due to the ambiguous and misplaced "____" lines in the articles signifying something unknown by you. This was confusing therefore I tagged them as so. None of my confusion related to the Japanese aspects of the articles. I get the feeling that you simply wanted to argue about the Japanese words and got frustrated because I wouldn't. That's about the only way I can interpret your very odd behavior. You first accuse me of not responding when I clearly did on your talk page (which you deleted twice) and then you threatened to revert any further tagging of mine as "vandalism"? You state that I was "non-responsive" because my response didn't relate to the Japanese terms? That's because I didn't tag the article because of the Japanese terms, So why would I respond about them if my tag had nothing to do with them? You need to stop throwing around insults and try to be more civil.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for participating in my request. I thought I be only too obliged to let you know that I have answered your question. Thank you once again. Regards, Rudget Contributions 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'll keep that in mind. Rudget Contributions 19:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for the recognition. I appreciate it. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 19:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the beretta jane page
what do i have to do to keep this page up on Wikipedia? The reason i ask is because its a fictitious story about a girl, the story is the band Beretta Jane's name. So we wanted to put the story which will be done in a script and go to film as well. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.

Brent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentybrent18 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:The Working Man's Barnstar
Hey, Thanks for the Barnstar!

Its nice to know work is appreciated!

Reedy Boy 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cillian Murphy
Hi Wikidudeman, I hope you don't mind this spilling over to your talk page, but as the discussion was getting quite long, I thought this would help things avoid the clutter. I also want to preface this by saying that I really, really admire the work you do on Wikipedia (I wish I had the stomach to fight the good fight, like you do, on so many difficult topics). To the topic at hand: Melty Girl has actually been rather receptive to the suggestions in the Cillian Murphy FAC -- she's made nearly 50 edits in response to those suggestions. She specifically asked for examples where tone is a problem and neither you nor VanTucky have provided any examples other than the blue eyes. No article on the Wiki is perfect, so I'd be happy to help with improvements myself, but I'm genuinely baffled (and I have FAC experience as well) as to what the tonal issues are. If pointed out, I'd be happy to work with Melty to help get them fixed. She's not unreasonable, and she's been very responsive to specific suggestions from Kudret and Karanacs. Let's help her get this across the line. --JayHenry 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikidudeman, I was able to find sources in Variety for all the claims that Sandy identified as not being acceptable from IMDB. (Per Sandy, it's okay for filmographies; conversely, almost all of IMDB is a mirror of Variety and Hollywood Reporter, so if you'd like I'm confident I could replace every citation to IMDB.  If there are other sources that you think need fixed, please let me know and I will search for alternatives as I have extensive archive access that melty might not.)  I was also able to fix the citation for which the Web site was no longer live (it wasn't a mismatch, just a dead url) and so it's no longer in the citation needed category.  I'm happy to copy edit for tone if you can point me to the sections where you feel this is still a problem. --JayHenry 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to hammer this one point (I really want to work to address all concerns you may have), but regarding the blue eyes, please consider the evidence here: Talk:Cillian Murphy. --JayHenry 04:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Wikidudeman - thanks for the barnstar! It's the first during my short time here - I appreciate knowing that my work is actually being seen by people. -- Quar te t  14:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
The edit warring seems to have dies down now. Let's leave this for a week or so and then either re-nominate for GA or go the whole hog and nominate if as a FAC. I'll put out feelers with some of the more rational pro-homeopathy editors to see if they might help with this. Tim Vickers 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve your article on "Homeopathy".
Thanks for considering external opinions on this article. I should start by saying that I am involved in the homeopathic industry and think that most of your article is fairly acurate. None-the-less, on the main page, third paragraph, your discussion of how homeopathy "seems implausable..." seems biased. It leads the reader in one direction, toward one opinion of homeopathy, and I don't think there is a place for that on Wikipedia, which should be non-biased. I would either omit this paragraph and leave it for the discussion section, or I would do more research, or collaberate with others, who can help you document cases and evidence that homeopathy does work. There is plenty out there.

Please feel free to email me back if you want help finding those resources. berkeley12@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meika12 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You might very well believe that homeopathy works. However, all the careful studies that have been done do not support this view. And all of scientific and medical knowledge and opinion is that it is implausible. And to be NPOV, the article must state this.--Filll 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt article
Greetings,

I am not taking sides on the issue, but I am very interested in the sources that are being used in the article about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians. If not you know of anything beyond what is in the main article, please contact me. Thank you.

Lafayette Gaston quince3800@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.192.233 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the star. :) *Cremepuff  222*  20:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, now I have two identical ones! Look at the very bottom... :) *Cremepuff  222*  21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Conway and Whitman page
Thank you for helping me in watching out for the Conway and Whitman page! Icecoldfire971 05:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tasco
Yo, i didn't mean to insult him directly, i was just giving my point if view on the matter. I gave advice to the user and offered him help. Sorry if i offended Tasco because of this, but it was only my opinion. Later G - Keep It Real - Real Compton  G  19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rounded corners
What part of morebits.js gives you rounded corners? It's quite a lot to read, and since there are no rounded corners in TW normally, I assume you put the custom js in.  Y   ДмΔќʃʀï →ГC←  10-22-2007 • 22:23:11

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate it. Elenseel 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

About the draft that you submitted
I thought that it was perfect, but for some reason you decided to undermine me and completely go around my last edit, while saving the previous revision, when what I did was eliminate original research/a non sequitur.. This is exactly why I wanted to wait and I surely hope there is no dispute over it so it may draw attention. This is what I'm referring to.

Somebody wrote, However, the Brace et al. study did not study Badari crania.

^^Which is of course evident first to whoever checks the source, making it redundant, and secondly it was posted after Keita's study with a "However" as if it undermines Keita's criticism when Keita's criticism had nothing at all to do with Badari crania anyways and he was directly criticizing Brace et al.. Which is why I removed that statement after trying to balance it, but more sloppy original research will do nothing. Hopefully you support me on that as it is ridiculous but you set it up this way by undermining my last edit in the draft and not giving it any priority. Maybe it was unintentional (though I don't see how, you would of had to save the version before my edit), but I didn't too much appreciate that.Taharqa 20:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That EgyEgy person added it and it wouldn't have gone unnoticed.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

^You did not abide by the final draft which was the problem and ultimately started the conflict, which is why I wanted more time to discuss, but you acted hastily, but that's said and done and I'll try and practice restraint.

About me sending you a full copy of the Ancient Egypt Magazine issue, there are two problems with that.

1) It is illegal to copy and paste copywrighted material that you're supposed to subscribe to in order to access. I have no permission to do this and you've even asked me to do it publicly.

2) I've already provided the direct quotation from the end of the articleTaharqa 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that some people are disputing whether the equation is taken out of context or not. Their issues with that are legitimate as we don't know whether or not the quote is taken out of context and Hawass meant something other than what is said, only reading the full version could tell.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Overstatement. Those "some people" is merely Egyegy and he has no basis whatsoever in his suspicion other than personal attacks and a long history of conflict. There is no "their" and like I've stated, it is illegal. I've provided the quote. It is a report of a direct quotation from a cited publication. I can dispute everything in the article that doesn't have a website link for no reason whatsoever, but I'm not childish and do assume good faith.Taharqa 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AGF doesn't mean that. AGF simply means that you assume the intentions of someone are made in good faith, it doesn't mean that you assume a source is legitimate.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

source for yaacov shavit
Taharqa added the verify credibility tag disengenuously to discredit him. He's a history professor at a world famous university per the link. He added the tag in very bad faith. Egyegy 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And as far as the Ancient Egypt Magazine, fine I'll see if I can find a copy to verify it bec Taharqa's done this before like I said. Egyegy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are other ways of being rude
Do have a badge that allows you to go around telling people what they can or cannot post even though they have not actually violated policy? What is offensive to you, may not be offensive to others. It can be considered rude, you know. Have you ever thought of that? Jeeny (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Requested.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Dearest Supporter, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget Contributions 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
have you at all looked at this page? Then I have difficulties understanding how you can propose a topic of Afro-American Studies should be discussed in any detail in an article on the completely unrelated field of Egyptology. I am sorry, but that's simply non-negotiable. We might as well introduce a Timecube section at Time on grounds that the former is clearly talking about "Time", and does have sufficient notability for its own article. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE doesn't state that fringe views or controversies must not be mentioned. Just that they should be discussed in context and not given undue weight over non-fringe views.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * precisely: undue weight. Summarize Afrocentrism in a brief paragraph per WP:SS, and discuss what presently takes up about 50% of the article elsewhere, at Afrocentrist Egyptology, and I'll be satisfied. I don't want to hide the existence of Afrocentrism, but I do want to prevent if from rendering sane debate of Egyptological topics impossible. It is not possible to discuss the population history of AE sanely if we have to account for far-out Afrocentrist cranks at every other turn. Just imagine we had to do the same for Nordicism at Germanic peoples.... --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How much should discuss the controversies and Afrocentric views? One brief paragraph isn't enough IMO.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Sorry to fill up your plate :-) Saw the article at GAC.  GAC won't notice those things, but they will matter at FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wierd
Our watchlists appear to have some overlap :) Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks a lot for that barnstar - my first one! :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 17:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin
  Click there to open your card! → → → My dear Wikipedian , Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day. Carlosguitar

Credits
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

RFA nom
I'd like to nominate you for administratorship. Please let me know if you are interested. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we settle this without RfAr?
In case you missed Mercury's response, is there some way we can reach an accommodation? Whig 03:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks very much for supporting my RfA. Unfortunately it wasn't a success, however, I appreciate your support all the same! —— Ryan (talk/contribs) 23:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: your report to AIV
Ok, I'm not going to template you but I had to remove your report of. The warning was 1 month ago and I just don't see the urge to block a shared IP that only edits a few times a month. There are vandalism and test edits, but also good contribs. Please be nicer! ;) -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 16:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I thought it was the same user that I recently warned for vandalizing the same article just a little while earlier.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Pan-Afican really appropriate?
I just went to the Pan-African page. Just as the African Deaspora page the page deals only with "black" Africans. A racist page to say the least no mention of any of the other native ethnicities. The placement of the article withing such a catigory seems only a thinly vieled attempt to continue the article within the African Deaspora section for later validation without merit. Much like a squatter within the modern american escrow laws.--207.14.131.239 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume the page you refer to is Pan-Africanism. "Racist" might be a bit strong, but it would seem to violate NPOV, but it describes a sociopolitical view which is itself at least somewhat inherently POV, so that's not completely inappropriate. John Carter 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The continuation of such practices proliferates certain editors in their beliefs that they are flying under the radar. In essince replacing a scientific term of African, which includes more that just "black" africans, subersivelly and not to covertly with "black" which is not always the intended definition of african when utillized by scienetis and egyptologists. I my opinion the placement within such a section creates the racist problem which I have just attempted to describe. --207.14.131.239 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your grammar is somewhat hard to follow at times. I believe you're saying his matter. Also, there are some rules regarding how pages should be titled, and the most common usage of a given word, even if not necessarily the most correct one, is generally considered in determining article's titles. I acknowledge that that article would benefit a lot from having general definitions of "White", "Red", "Black," "Yellow" in terms of race included, however. It would also help if the book The Seven Daughters of Eve were referenced even once in the article on race in humans, although it isn't yet. If you can produce good evidence of Pan-Africanism or equivalents being used in scientific jargon, however, I would welcome seeing it. I'm not sure this is necessarily the best place to make such comments however. John Carter 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tripoli is a city in Africa, Johanasberg is a City in Africa, Africa is a geographical scientific term. My arguement is not in favor of such descriptive terms as "Black" and "White" but the recognition of such terms being used inappropriatelly even when presented in a context where-by a footnote is required for identification, even if, as-per my prior staement, used incorrectlly or inconsistently with the desired definition of references authers. Unfortunatelly mitochondrian dna has created more opportunity for con people and opportuntist to cause,or hope to cause even without tests backing their claims, striff and scam for the world. Unfortunatelly far short of any true philladelphian (brotherlly) hope to the world, As per you reference to the seven daughters of eve.--207.14.131.239 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "color" terms are extremely difficult to define, and that they should probably be used as infrequently as possible for that reason, and defined at least once in wikipedia so that it can be made clear exactly how the terms are used here. And manipulation of any scientific data to benefit "the cause" is something I too think is to prevalent in the world, although I can't think of a time when it wasn't common. Unfortunately, several "theories" of race, like Aryan race, are notable enough that we are more or less forced by circumstances to have at least something on them. This article falls in the same group. These "ideas" ("theories" is the wrong word), strange as some are, are independently notable. Also, unfortunately, this theory seems to be a rebuttal of the earlier Hamitic theory, which wasn't any better. I agree that the article might be better structured as one of a series of articles dealing with these related ideas and facts, but the older editors of the page consider the name of the page of primary importance, and that's what's being decided now. John Carter 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

People name their countries after their people and tribes. German is phonetically similair to Aryan, China to Chin. Color is hard to define, yes especially in a world where more than "white" people can get tans. HOWEVER, Africa IS a geographical scientific term,  As such the term does not refer to only "black" africans. To protected the page as it is from subversive and innappropreate inuendo, or as you put it "ideas", the unttilization of the Pan-Afr*ican catagory should be removed, the placement within the catagory is subversive to referenced materials and the intended definitions of researchers,  the placement is a footnote that does not allow the quotation to speak for themselves. Unless of course the Pan-African page recieves a MAJOR overhaul. As per you belief about replacing the present page with, as you put it, ""idea"s" in a series. I belive that would be innappropreate. That would further POV referencing from wikipedia itself in an inappropreate maner. Did you even read the section " Ahh to be a part of history"? --207.14.131.239 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and think that your assessment of this article there is probably dramatically overrated. Right now, the idea of the ancient Egyptians being black seems to me to already be a complementary idea to the Hamitic article, and I believe it could be presented as a separate article, as that Hamitic theory is. This is in perfect accord with wikipedia policy, as long as the article referenced makes it clear that it is discussing one viewpoint on an issue, and adequately discusses the opposition as well. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming already does that and is considered to be an NPOV article. There is no real inhibition to having such content, as long as the article states it is presenting only one viewpoint, even a minority viewpoint, on an issue, and links to the other content. Creating a navigation box between this article and other related articles would make it clear that they were all directly related, and the average reader would realize, depending on the phrasing of the introduction, that a separate article on the modern theory, linked with an article on the consensus scientific theory on Egyptians and other related articles, is perfectly in accord with wikipedia guidelines and policy. John Carter 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why, mind you, John Carter (is that your real name or a refernece to Buckaroo Banzie?) did you through the course of this discusion prove the very point of "ahh to be a part of history". Your referencing my part of the discusion, as per serial articles, concern with identification of color, as opposed to my concern with inderectly identifiey color through subversive means, when I made NO such statments or claims validate the very argument I am discusing in that section. As a "junior"? editor (which you are arn't you?) your approach to the discusion has been, in my opinion, closed minded and uninterested in hearing, even at least, a valid point. That point is not everyone that was/is in africa is "black" African/n is a geographical scientific term, and to inappropriatelly reference the term Africa/n to "black" is detrimental to the success of this article and inderectlly detrimentally to the wikipedia project.--207.14.131.239 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a junior editor, who actually bothers to let people know how much experience he has. Do you? Also, as repeatedly noted by me, how is your discussion here relevant to an article about Egyptians? I would love to hear an answer to that question, which I frankly have yet to see. And please do not vandalize articles by moving sections of content, as you have just done. Thank you. Regarding your point, yes, it might be relevant to the article in question. Why are you making those comments here? How are they even remotely relevant to this article? John Carter 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That is a strong accusation I have NEVER deleted or removed material. I feel that is contrarty to the dicusion page purpose. It is not commmon consencus that the egyptians were "black" and the blind use of the word Africa/n to equate "black" is inappropreate. Quite simply your denial of even placing the Pan-Africanism link in the see also section, as per your relating the validity of the serial pages, as opposed to having the article within the Pan-African section is suspect in resoning (As long as Pan-African were identifiey as a sociopolitical "view".). The answer to the question what is this doing in this discusion page is right in front of your face. NO I did not study anthropology, much like you, I mearlly bring to light a valid point. Apperentlly they seem extremely relavant to the article.--207.14.131.239 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft
Could you ask for the draft page and its page be restored? We really do need the history of the page for future reference. Egyegy 03:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

^I have no idea what relevance the draft has now that the page is unprotected.Taharqa 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the page is protected now. For what it's worth, you had earlier indicated that you thought some of the statements in the article were unsupported. By policy, you have the right to challenge any material you believe is not adequately sourced, and request that the sourcing be demonstrated. If the sourcing does not support the statements made, you are completely within your rights to request the information be removed. I believe you would have every right to request the citations, and if necessary exact quotations, for any material which you see fit to challenge. John Carter 20:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Please don't send me messages accusing me of doing something that I'm obviously not doing! It is in extremely bad taste and if anything, you should worry about dab since he seems to be the main outliner. I don't see you warning Egyegy for reverting Muntuwandi's good faith edits so don't bother me by complaining about my "1 revert" over 24 hours ago of a bad faith edit.Taharqa 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I'm watching the thread and will chime in if I think I can help. Pedro : Chat  14:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks a lot! :D -- Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of Ancient Egyptians
I haven't edit warred, just one revert in 24 hours. You can check the edit history. Muntuwandi 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Curious
How do you make the floating box with the reminder at the bottom right of the browser?? (Nicolaususry 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

help with editing
Hi, I am trying to post links to a site that has bios and information about a bunch of artists, but my posts keep getting removed. For example I posted a link to Magritte's sketch "Untitled (pipe)" [1] and bio under the 'see also' section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_Of_Images do you know how i can edit without being removed? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkcollection (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested
Heya - any comment you can make here would be most appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

R&I – a new approach
R&I has been protected for a breather while we try to form some consensus as to the direction. In the interim we have set up a “sandbox” at: User:Moonriddengirl/Race and intelligence/backgound. Moonriddengirl is a neutral admin who has set up the space where we can work on the text section by section; this allows us to have a talk page for the micro project. So far JJJamal, Futurebird and I have made suggested changes with additions in bold and deletions in strikeout. This section and its talk page is an experiment in trying to come together as a group on a focused area. If it works we’d like to approach Guy, the admin who has protected the page, to insert our work-product into the protected article and then take on another section. I would really like to get your feedback on this so that we can demonstrate a consensus. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's "racist" comment on LaraLove's RfA
User:GlassCobra just compared Lara to a racist in her RfA (see ). I find this comment highly offensive and, since it just occurred within the last few hours, feel it should be considered by editors before GlassCobra's RfA is closed at Requests for adminship/GlassCobra. As such, I have requested a delay in the closing of Cobra's RfA. Since you've been involved in this discussion over so-called ageism, I'd also suggest you voice your opinion on Cobra's RfA. Best,--Alabamaboy 12:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)