User talk:Lx 121

Moshi Moshi...?

(click the little plus sign in the row of tabs at the top to add a comment; or send me an email)

A tag has been placed on Elenchus (brachiopod) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —BoL @ 07:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I notice all the changes you have made there. Many of the links you have added are unnecessary or inappropriate. I am going to revert you at this point because otherwise it will take me a good hour or two to check each individual link and edit it. I am also going to copy this to the talk page of the article, where your messages about your edits should go (as opposed to the talk pages of individual editors) - after all, this is a collaborative effort and many of the pages you seem to have an interest in are watchlisted or edited by many people. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia, and tell us that you have real life experience in editing articles, perhaps you would be interested in participating in a very useful wikiproject: The League of copy editors. There are a lot of editors who recognize that they need some help in writing articles and actively seek assistance, and your suggestions will likely be better received there than in stable, highly visible and widely watched articles.

I would urge you to modify your editing technique when you are copyediting an article. Consider opening up several tabs (or windows, depending on your browser) and checking each proposed link in a separate window before adding it to the article you are editing. Evaluate the link: does it provide useful information to the article? does it lead directly to an article as opposed to a disambiguation page? if it is a redlink, is there a genuine need for it or for the potential article? I would also recommend that you "save" your changes after every section or paragraph (for complex articles, sometimes every sentence). That makes it much easier for other editors to respond to the changes you'd like to include. As well, if you are making more than a few changes to an article, consider discussing it on the talk page before proceeding, to see if other editors agree with your plan; this is particularly important with high visibility articles, because their content is usually quite stable and/or is widely watchlisted. Best, Risker (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:EL provides guidance too. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article Esto gaza immediately fails Wikipedia:Notability. An article about a fictional locational must have enough real-world coverage such as statements on conceptual design and critical reception and reaction. This helps it establish an encyclopedic article. If you wish, you may expand more on Esto Gaza in the Final Fantasy Wiki instead. Thank you. — Blue。 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your correction. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

) thank you back. i noticed a few other minor things in the text that i might try correcting; but i am not familiar enough with the subject, & the technical vocabulary. i do not want to make a copyedit-type correction that accidentally damages the information-content. "in" seemed safe enough thoiugh, lol

the piece is certainly an interesting read! the history section needs some organizing tho; the chronology is a bit messy

You got me seriously wrong; I like the picture and I am not the one who removed it. Did you check the history? --BorgQueen (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the same message on his talk page. Are you aware I am an admin, too? If you can make the objection on mine, then why not on his. :-D --BorgQueen (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I won't disturb it for now. But you misspelled her married name and the construction was awkward and doesn't conform to encyclopedic standard construction for such listing of parental names. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To which encyclopedia standard are you referring? if the names were side-by-side: i.e.: Eugene & Theresa Osment (nee Siefert), or Theresa nee Siefert and Eugene Osment (already a bit more awkward), fine. but when you have additional material intervening (in this case her profession), you repeat the surname to be clear. you cannot automatically assume that a person's parents are (or were ever) married, that the wife took the husband's last name, or if she has changed her name by marriage or other means, that it will be the same as the father of her child. the child's surname is not a reliable indicator of this either. if you want to drop the brackets around "nee" fine, but if you don't want to specify the mother's last name seperately, the sentence needs to be revised so the parent's names are immediately beside each other, otherwise the meaning is not sufficiently clear, especially to a person with a non western/english-language background, or a person whose english is less than 100%. hell, i've had people who spent their entire lives in a western/english-language environment ask me what "nee" means, or if it had anything to do with monty python :P

i know about the name, sorry, my bad!

Lx 121 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the policy, RfC, guideline or precedent upon which you are basing your insistence that people from the US, who are customarily called "American" would now be referred as "US actress" or "US actor". This is the usage that is in use on thousands of biographies and until your change on two articles, has not been an issue. A person from Brazil would not be referred as a Brazil actor, a person from France would not be called a France actor, a person from the US is not referred to as a US-ican, and more to the point, a person from Canada would not be called an American actor or a Canada actor. It would be Brazilian actor, French actor, Canadian actor, and persons from the US are referred to as American. That is not a POV title, it is what Americans refer to themselves as, it is what people from other countries call Americans. There is no need to use US in the opening sentence. The country is designated in the infobox as either U.S. or United States. This isn't an issue of centrism, it is, as the disambiguation page notes - which is why I referred you to it - what people from the US are called. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am in the habit of clicking a link before I post it, I am quite aware of what the page says and that it is a disambiguation page. Actually, I believe I mentioned that above. The order on that page has no bearing on a preferred usage. It simply covers all the contexts on Wikipedia in which it would be used. And as I said above, the first usage on the page is in the infobox, which designates the country as the US or the United States. It is an absolutely valid descriptor to say an actor from the US is an American actor. It is what citizens of this country are called. The unceasing discussions on the talk page of the American page is only that - unceasing discussion. It has no result, there is no consensus that has been universally applied across the encyclopedia, there is no policy or guideline that discourages or forbids its use and there is no relevant request for comments that is applicable here. It's quite simple. Much the same as citizens of Great Britain are called "British", not Great Britains, the people who live in the United States are referred to as "Americans" (although I would comment that there seems to be a great deal of vacillation on whether to call someone from England "English" or "British" and so on in the UK). Unless you plan on embarking on a mission to change the reference in thousands of articles, I see no reason for you to insist on changing two, which, if necessary, can be referred for a consensus determination. In the meanwhile, it would appear this would be your crusade, not a precedent. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not interested in reading ongoing and unceasing discussion. What is relevant is what is in the article, and from the introduction, I quote The word can be used as both a noun and an adjective. In adjectival use, it is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States of America"; for example, "Elvis Presley was an American singer" or "the American president gave a speech today;" in noun form, it generally means U.S. citizen or national (see names for Americans). Rather than give multiple articles and less relevant talk page debate and argument, As I requested, please show me the policy, guideline, request for comment determination, or precedent upon which you are basing your insistence that multiple thousands of articles, or even these two out of all of them, must suddenly be changed, otherwise please don't embark on a mission outside of a consensus/policy declaration. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I removed no material from the article. If you had bothered to actually check into it, you would see that I had re-arranged two sections and added more referenced material. I would also remind you that you are in danger of violating WP:3RR if you revert again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the revision I made, which rearranged and added a section and more material. This is where you removed all of it. I note that your changes of the reference to American has now been challenged by at least three different editors [1] [2] [3] on more than one page, by an editor from Great Britain, an editor from the US, and an editor from Australia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] You gave links to an unassessed page, therefore not checked for validity, to pages that discuss the word, which clearly gives the statement I quoted above, which do not dispute the use of the word, and in fact, verify that persons from the United States: in modern English it more frequently refers specifically to people or things from the United States... In adjectival use, it is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States of America"; for example, "Elvis Presley was an American singer" or "the American president gave a speech today;" in noun form, it generally means U.S. citizen or national (see names for Americans). and in fact, as I have stated more than once now, the order that the short list is given on the dab page American makes no reference to the use or meaning that you are implying. I also have told you that there is no point in reading through an extensive article talk page wherein no consensus was formed, no determination was made, and were in fact only ongoing arguments that have no relevance. You absolutely have not given any Wikipedia policy, as I asked, that specifically addresses this issue, nor have you given a guidelines, a request for comment outcome or a precedent despite the fact that I asked three times. How can it be unfair to say you have not given these things when you in fact have not? As I stated, editors from three different continents have disputed your changes and that is significant. At this point, I have to suggest that this is a matter of your point of view, unbased in any determination in policy. As you've been told on your talk page and in more than one edit summary, this is the normative convention for describing people from the United States and it has not been an issue on any of the thousands of biographies that I've looked at on this site. I have given numerous examples and rationales for why your change is wrong and all you've given me is an unassessed article - not a policy - and a couple of incessant talk page arguments. When everyone around you disagrees with your edit, perhaps it would serve you to actually consider that they have been here a long time and understand the conventions that are used. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "American" thing is a major issue either - (referring to your comments on my talk page). The reason I delinked "American" was not because it linked to a disamb page, but because common words are delinked in line with WP:COMMON as per my edit summary, so your comments to me don't take this into account. Whether the definition I gave as justification is listed 2nd or 200th is irrelevant. It's on the list as a suitable usage. In any case, "American" is very widely used here to indicate the U.S. Nobody would assume that Meryl Streep is from anywhere but the U.S. because if she was from another country in North America or South America, the specific country would be given. I agree with your reasoning, but this is a standard use here and is applied to thousands of biographical articles. If you want to start a discussion somewhere to have them all reworded, that's fair enough. To change just Meryl Streep and leave the other thousands is not an effective approach. Consistency is an important consideration, but if you feel strongly enough about it, perhaps it would be worth discussing on the applicable MoS page. Rossrs (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try getting a third opinion or a request for comment first. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, looking at what he changes vs. what you change is that for one, you are inserting that "Police found indications that Osment was intoxicated at the time" although the reference article says ""we suspect alcohol played a role in the accident". That is qualitatively different. Suspecting something is different that finding definitive indication. He is also disputing the reliably of the Starpulse reference entirely. Also, neither of the articles currently used as reference say marijuana, so that is why I believe that was removed. I am also concerned that by rearranging the text, some of the section that you revised then moved what was being referenced. Where a citation is placed is vitally important on a WP:BLP. Frankly, I do not see what referenced material you are contending is being removed. If it is the marijuana, then there will have to be a more specific reference that confirms that, since the present ref say "drug possession charges."

I split the personal life section because in most actor articles, the format tends to start out with early life, moves to what makes the person notable, and then discusses the more recent (or in this case, adult) personal life near the end. Osment's personal life will continue and as it does, it will push what makes him notable further and further down the page. There is a clear differentiation between his life as a child and one as an independent adult. I also believe that because the reference states that one of the reasons Osment played the All-Start Cup was because the team was being led by Mark Meara. Another note: there is no precedent for using an ampersand in regular text in an article and good writing form guidelines suggest not starting a section with a date to avoid the look of laundry-listing facts.

Finally, I agree, the issue of the use "American" will have to be addressed on a wider scale than these two articles because at present, there is no guideline or policy that specifically addresses this. That a dab is used with American is not something specific to that term. In almost every instance I can think of, the nationality descriptor is disambiguated in some way, whether it be [[French people|French]] or any other country. At present, it is the accepted demonym. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the issue. Another editor also challenged the section as you wrote it as well. The reason is that the references that are in the article do not support inclusion of the blood tests and specifics regarding marijuana. For that reason, and that reason only, it was removed. Without specific supporting citations, it is a violation of WP:BLP. It is not my responsibility to determine what references to include to support your version. It is incumbent upon the person who is insistent on including something that otherwise violates biography of living persons policy to add the documentation that supports what the person is adding. It is not good faith on your part to accuse me of trying to shape the article to a positive slant. I'm quite clear on the reasoning - it's a WP:BLP issue. Incidentally, and to repeat, WP:BLP is the reason that the marijuana and blood test assertions can't remain in the article without citation. The present references do not support it. I rewrote the section in a manner that reflects what the references say. Period. You're the second person in as many days to say, "But my version is correct, see, here are some references ... you put them in to support my version." That simply is not how it is done. If you want the section to reflect blood tests and marijuana, then by all means, add your references to support it. Meanwhile, in order to submit your version, you added the blood test and marijuana directly in front of the citations that in fact supported the previous sentence, leaving that part unreferenced. Again, just to be clear, by putting the blood test and marijuana content in front of those references, it implies the refs support that. They don't. Please, by all means, if you want that content in the article, then add the references for it. Otherwise, it can be taken to the BLP noticeboard and they will determine that at long as it is improperly cited or completely unreferenced, it is a violation of WP:BLP and presents a legal liability issue for Wikipedia. There is really no higher tenet for Wikipedia than that.

Meanwhile, as for the golfing portion, the reference that is currently present does say that he was excited to join the team to work with that player. It's actually - surprise!! - already sourced. As for the ABC link - I didn't change that. Someone else did, and I don't really care about that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you believe my pov is not the npov because your pov is npov, or that whatever is the npov in your pov is the npov. Things aren't so simple. Just as you believe I'm on the edge of violating NPOV by removing unsource wp:OR, I believe you are violating NPOV by putting it back. I understand the urge. If there is still a "civil war" continuing between the two sides, and civil wars are, after all, by definition internal to a country, the it appears to follow that Taiwan and China are still part of one country. However, if the war is over, then the outcome has been determined and it would appear to follow that Taiwan is no longer part of China. Based on your edits in various places you appear to be in the camp that believes Taiwan and China are part of a single country. The fact that you have a POV doesn't disqualify you from editing, but you shouldn't be so quick to accuse others of bias or of violating rules. We all have POVs. Better to discuss the reasoning for various decisions rather than to go around making ad hominem accusations of bias.

Plenty of wars have ended with no formal peace treaty. Wars often don't begin with formal agreements, and there is no requirement that they have a formal agreement to end them. Are you going to sue them back into killing each other just because they don't have a signed document authorizing and end of hostilities?

Pyl's wording: To this day, as no official armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed, there are controversies as to whether the Civil War has legally ended^[1] is pretty neutral and acceptable to me even though I don't believe the end result is truly neutral. As most wars in the modern era end with treaties, it does make sense to note that the Chinese Civil War had no such a treaty to end it. However, including the supposed legal question in my opinion gives undue weight to something trivial. What law are we talking about when we say "legally"? In most countries there is an enforcement mechanism for laws, what enforcement mechanism will demand that the KMT and CPC go back to killing each other? Is this controversy being actively pursued in court of law somewhere? What jurisdiction does this question fall under and to what court does one appeal? The question of whether the war has "legally" ended is somewhat ridiculous and its very inclusion puts undue weight on a particular POV. However, when it comes to POV questions I'm generally in favor of more information rather than less, so long as the information is presented accurately and as unbiasedly as possible. Readin (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make that stub. I'd be happy to do the ref formatting for you.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

made :) Lx 121 (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Lx 121. Thanks for your report. What you've noticed is in fact a bug, but strangely enough, the script was working fine for me on Ubuntu 8.10 running Firefox 3.0.x. I was able to replicate the bug on an old Ubuntu image running Firefox 2; the problem was that the events that keep the menus open while you're still hovering over them weren't being assigned correctly in some browser environments, which has now been fixed.

I'm guessing that you're using the gadget deployment, which should mean that a quick Ctrl-F5 should fix the problem if it's still there. If you're still not seeing any change, then please do let me know. Thanks again, and all the best! haz (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sanssouci (song), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanssouci (song). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Juvenile Deletionist 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; thank you for your help == re: juvenile deletionist ==

no problem; i was in the same situation: write a post, get an edit conflict... >__<

that's why i stopped (also to take a break, before i got too emotionally involved)

sry if i threw off the formatting, i was trying for the bottom of the one section first, then just the bottom of the page.

hope this thing gets resolved in a good way; tho i admit i don't think wikipedia needs more deletionists (rueful lol)

Lx 121 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not ill-informed, uncritical and (dare I say it) young inexperienced ones. Hope to see you around. I have, for convenience, moved this to your talk page. Feel free to delete if this is not acceptable. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem; i'm never sure whether to answer on my own page, or the other user's. i wish there was a universal standard here, or better yet, an app something like "wall-to_wall" on facebook, to synch up conversations. i'm always around, mostly doing copyedits, or minor stuff that i find in my wanderings (i really like the wiki power tools, even just for surfing). i try not to get into the discussions/debates/arguements too deeply, it eats up time, & when i start to get emotionally involved, i know i need to back off. regards & thanks for helping with that user Lx 121 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lx 121. With respect, some of the recent changes you've made to the Rhyolite page have introduced errors that concern me. Your new layout causes the caboose and storage tank to overlap two text sections. WP:LAYOUT#Images suggests that when this happens, the article may have too many images. The school building photo that you added is OK but not necessarily better than one I removed a few weeks ago to make a little more space for a clean layout. In addition, when you moved the photos around, you left citation 36 hanging in space under the "Bust" head. This citation backed up the claim that the bank was on Golden Street and mentions the street map in the McCoy book. An error related to the caboose and storage tank image is the change you made to the caption. The issue of whether or not the caboose and tank are leftover from the Union gas station came up at FAC, but I was unable to find a reliable source for this assertion. We can't assume they are the same even though it seems highly likely. Smaller errors appear in three of your new captions. Captions that are sentence fragments do not get terminal periods. Please see Wikipedia:MOS#Formatting for confirmation of this. In the Rhyolite Mercantile caption, it is not necessary to repeat "Nevada", and in any case, the correct abbreviation is "Nev.", not "Nv." A great deal of work went into getting the article to featured status. The lead photo you added earlier is excellent, and I don't disagree with all of your changes. Would you mind, though, if I reverted the most recent set? Please discuss if you don't agree. You can post to the article's talk page if you'd rather not take up space here. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of posting on other user's talk page:

hi;

i'm never sure where to reply to these things, on my talkpage, or the other person's.

i'll respond point by point; please don't take it as rudeness, my time is rather limited & i'm deep in the middle of writing something.

1. the photolayout doesn't cause any jam-ups of [edit] markers, which is the reason for that policy, but i can easily adjust the image a little, if you would prefer. the reason i placed it there is that is the only place in the article that talks about a caboose as a building in rhyolite.

2. the citation has been moved up to the picture caption again. the picture is also now right next to the text specifying the bank's location.

3. i also think it overwhelmingly likely that the caboose & tank are the remains of the gas station; unless for some reason dismounted caboose cabins were commonly used as buildings in rhyolite. if we can't prove it tho, perhaps we should simply remove the pic? or replace it with a different one? WMC has several possibilities; there are other (good) unused shots of the town & area, including several of the caboose. if we're not claiming a connection to the ancient gas station, the tank probably isn't of that much interest; this pic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caboose_July_2006.jpg is better as a photo of just the caboose. or there is that pic of the rhyolite sign: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RhyoliteSign.jpg although i think it would be a better shot if the angle showed more of the town.

4. combed thru & removed the terminal periods from all captions that might be considered less than complete sentences.

5. i added "Nv" to the end of that line to give some symmetry, simply saying: "Rhyolite Mercantile", an abandoned general store in Rhyolite is slightly clumsy; there should be some kind of qualifier on the second usage of "rhyolite", otherwise it seems redundant, & there needs to be some specificity of location. i'm open to alternative phrasings: "Rhyolite Mercantile", an abandoned general store in the town of Rhyolite? or... (do we have a street location for this bldg?)

6. Nv/NV is an accepted abbreviation of Nevada, it is mentioned on the article page for that state. i've no strong attachment to its usage, it was simply the most compact form. i have no objections to your changing it.

7. thank-you re: lead pic; a photographer friend of mine took it & i knew it would be a perfect fit when i first saw it; i was the one who talked him into joining wiki (ha).

8. can we get a map of the site/town plan? btwn the park & historical atlases, there must be something that's PD.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lx 121. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's fine to respond to my messages either here or on my talk page or on the article's talk page. I will keep a watch on them all. (1) Your move of the caboose image fixed the problem. It was causing a jam-up on my monitor, but it doesn't now. Thanks for moving it. (2) The photo caption citation looks fine again. I removed the extra citation left behind under the "Bust" section head. (3) I agree that it's overwhelmingly likely that the caboose and tank are the same, and it has been irritating to me to be unable to find proof. On the other hand, replacing the image with another one of the caboose alone wouldn't solve the problem. I had earlier considered the alternate caboose image you mention but thought it was overexposed, and it also has licensing questions that have not been addressed and would probably not have survived FAC. (4) The caption punctuation is correct again after I removed one more terminal period from the lead caption. (5 and 6) Although handy for quick reference, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. I used "Nevada" as a compromise. (7) Your friend's photography is excellent; I'm glad you recruited him. (8) A map is a good idea. I have made some maps using PD Census maps as the base and other works as data sources. Making maps is quite time-consuming, but I like doing them, and I might be able to pull it off. Thanks for the suggestion. (9) I see you were active in LoCE. Me too. It's too bad it bit the dust. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After giving the caboose caption more thought, I've come around to agreeing with you that it's probably best to include the gas station claim even if no reliable source can support it. My reasoning is that the claim is so obviously true that no one is apt to question it whereas they do and have questioned its absence. I restored your preferred version, which may be more stable than mine. Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BADCATS and reconsider the existence of your user category - thanks. There are correct ways of doing this. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to also revert the merging of the table (although, I think it's mostly superfluous and ugly), just the link format. --EEMIV (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fair enuf. i don't really care about the apostrophe s not being a part of the link, tho i think it looks bad. i didnt create the table, i just moved it; there's a growing list of actors who have portrayed kirk now, & it's germane to list them. funny how the kid is the only one with the first name "james". i'm open to redesign & improvements of the table. merging hte shatner listings might be an idea? Lx 121 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Grayson - adding link for my convenience Lx 121 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF, WP:GNG, WP:OR. Your expansion of Amandra Grayson is a collection of uncited plotcruft and speculation; I'd think the resound slap-down of Red matter (Star Trek) might make you more inclined to pay attention to the guidelines about notability and writing about fiction -- but, perhaps you missed the links; here they are. Furthermore, I also notice you failed to address the issues raised on the talk page -- can you address them, either on that talk page, the AfD page or (here's an idea!) in the article itself? --EEMIV (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i tried to be nice; please note that you are the one setting the tone here, it's your choice. i've provided the missing references you cited as the reason for removing the page. i didn't write the material, i simply restored what you deleted. i'm still working on improving it, in between other things in my life, some of which do not involve wikipedia. your practice of unilaterally blanking & redirecting articles, then leaving a token message on the talkpage, is borderline vandalism, & i suggest you stop doing it. Lx 121 (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references wholly fail to establish notability or provide a real-world treatment of the character. Again, WP:WAF. Note, too, WP:BURDEN -- restoring content that fails to meet guidelines and policies is counterproductive. Keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline -- if you're so busy that you can't do a sufficient job meeting basic content requirements, you might be better off working on a draft in userspace (e.g. User:Lx 121/Amanda Grayson) and working on it there until it has specific citations to reliable third-party sources (and not wikis and fan sites) that substantiate a claim of real-world notability (again, things Amanda Grayson still doesn't do). --EEMIV (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

& actually i don't really give a damn about trek, if it's going to be covered it should be covered properly, if it's not then so be it, but the policy for wikipedia's coverage of fictional topics needs to be clearly, because as an encyclopedia, it's a mess right now! Lx 121 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT may be in flux, but WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:WAF are pretty clear -- and topics such as Amanda Grayson and Red matter (Star Trek) don't make the cut for inclusion. The proper coverage for these marginally significant topics is some "List of X" or a passing reference in some other article. If you disagree with that, rather than restoring material that doesn't meet basic and well-established guidelines and policies, you might instead engage at WT:FICT. --EEMIV (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i was just wondering, but; do you do anything on wikipedia other than delete, redirect, & wikilawyering? i think we've just about run out of things to say to each other here, if all you're going to do is wave a few thousand words worth of WP at me. you wanted references, you got references. google has 100,000+ listings for amanda greyson. how many references would you like? ^__^ Lx 121 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I make it a point to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which is why several articles about fictional topics I wrote the majority of have been promoted to WP:GA status -- I know quite well that some elements of fiction are notable. But plenty aren't, and you seem to struggle with this idea (I did, too -- one of my first contributions was to create this POS). Your tendentious restoration of non-notable material is becoming disruptive. Please take a moment to review the project's guidelines on fictional topics' notability and coverage (and WP:GHITS -- Google hits don't count for much here). Regarding Cade Skywalker: the Star Wars wikiproject consensus is for characters like that to redirect to List of Star Wars characters -- did it occur to you to raise the question of the subject's notability on the article talk page? the wikiproject talk page? Again, you seem more concerned with expanding coverage but are not paying attention to Wikipedia's basic guidelines for inclusion. Your persistent failure to engage on article talk-page discussion is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. Furthermore, please differentiate between contributions and contributors. It's great that you disagree with the project's attitude toward fictional topics -- again, feel free to jump into WT:FICT and say your piece. However, shifting the focus to accuse me of wikilawyering and whatnot doesn't do anything except put you across the WP:NPA line. --EEMIV (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 quick points: 1. those aren't google stats, those are wikimedia's traffic reports for hits on the page. 2. i disagree with your practice of unilaterally blanking & redirecting articles; i feel that you are the one in violation of WP on that point. 3. i admire your ability to deny that you are wikilawyering, & then invoke... 4(!) items of WP to justify your position. you have a fine sense of irony! XD Lx 121 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, with respect, if you go back & review your comments, not just to me, but in general as well, i think you will find that you are the one who is in danger of violating WP:NPA Lx 121 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Okay, so what? The subject, by Wikipedia's standards, is sufficiently covered at the List of whatever Star Trek character list it is. Your rewrite, again, fails to offer citations and fails to offer a real world perspective; the type of content you've offered is un-universe plot summary -- and readers are better served by Memory Alpha's in-universe treatment of the article. 2. Great. It's a practice, though, that generally works great for me; I'm not likely to change it. The only "violation" that sometimes occur is a failure to abide by WP:BRD -- but, in these instances, it's been your shortcoming by restoring the in-universe cruft without responding on the talk pages or addressing the issues raised on the talk pages. I give you credit for offering terse responses at these pages (some modicum of progress), but the content changes are pretty much insignificant and fail to address notability and a real-world treatment of the topic. 3. I never denied "wikilawyering" -- which I construe as understanding policies and guidelines, and trying to point you toward them. If you think it's wikilawyering, fine. Since you know the project well enough to know that term, is it fair, then, to assume you've read WP:WAF, WP:RS, WP:GNG and...are just ignoring them? --EEMIV (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stats

thought you might be interested to know that the article about Amanda Grayson had 13,000 + hits in april, before the movie came out.

http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/Amanda%20Grayson

& so far (as of may 19) 36889 in may

http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Amanda_Grayson

clearly a trivial subject, that no one would consider going on wikipedia to look for.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these substantiate the subject's notability. --EEMIV (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Cade Skywalker, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixing typos & minor copyedits are allowed, as long as it does not change the overall intention of the post. would you prefer if i fixed my typos with a strikethru? Lx 121 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute i didnt make a comment on the cade skywalker talk page? tho i will be now. Lx 121 (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You carelessly removed my explanation for the redirect -- you know, that message you should have responded to (or concerns you should have addressed in the article) before restoring content that the Star Wars wikiproject agrees doesn't warrant inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i checked the history; it seems i accidentally modified the talk page, when i was trying to restore the article, tho i'm not sure how. your redirect kept sending me to the wrong place & i must have hit the back button too many times; thank-you for restoring it. you will find i have added comments on the talk page there now. i note that don't seem to have a problem with blanking & redirecting pages before you post on the talk pages explaining your actions. i also note that this dialogue is becoming increasingly hostile & unproductive. unless one of us has something of substance to say to the other, i suggest that we terminate this exchange. i don't like getting into pointless petty arguements, & i've come as close to the edge of my sense of good manners as i care to go, possibly a bit further. i think it's fair to say that you set the tone for this exchange, but i regret responding in kind. i will try not to do so in future, & would prefer it if we limited any further exchanges strictly to discussion of wikipedia-related matters, without the sniping. Lx 121 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same experiences at AfD's... :( If you have any books that approach Star Trek from a sociological point of view, those would add some weight to the article. There was a series of books called The Best of Trek, I read one of them years ago, unfortunately don't have access to them any more... – Alensha ^talk 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User:Lx 121, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think you're looking for one of the Wikipedia Special Pages – Special:PrefixIndex/User:Lx_121 lists all pages in your userspace. Regards, Bencherheavy (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at User talk:Wknight94. I didn't realize I had the page on my watchlist as it's been several years since the incident and you're the first person who's had a problem with the page and thought it was important to edit war about it. Please be aware of WP:3RR. The wording on the page is !!'s own. It was his desired way to leave things, and you've not provided any reason to trample his parting wishes with a clumsy note after the entire reason he left was getting trampled to begin with. --JayHenry (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what sort of bad decisions could occur, since !! has not edited for several years. Any admin who somehow stumbles across the page and doesn't realize that it's not a standard sockpuppet template is probably not fit to be an admin. But even if they can't figure this out, I can't see what damage could possibly be done? What's the hypothetical here? In several years your wanting to edit the page is the only incident. As for guidelines, WP:USER does rather clearly discourage editing other people's user pages. --JayHenry (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lx 121/Weapons of Silent Hill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lx 121/Great knife (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lx 121/The Great Knife (Silent Hill) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lx 121/In progress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lx 121, I noticed yesterday that you had replaced the cropped mine image with the three-panel version. I had carefully considered this option before taking the article to FAC and chose the cropped version because the side panels were scratched and, in my opinion, contained no information that illustrated the text any better than the center panel. No article, whether it has an FA star or not, can be said to be perfect, and it's not surprising to see an FA get changed over time. On the other hand, an FA results from the work of many people, not just the main contributor, and all aspects are examined at FAC before the star is awarded. Any change made thereafter might or might not meet FA standards. In the case of the three-panel mine image, I would say that it might pass FA unchanged but that the licensing information would not pass because the link to the source is circular; it links to a TIF rather than to a source page that allows a fact-checker to quickly judge whether the licensing is correct or not. This might seem nit-picky, but these very questions arise during every FAC review. If you look at the licensing page for the single panel Image:Montgomery mine panorama cropped middle.jpg, you will see the difference between the information it contains and the information your license contains. They are similar but not identical, and part of what is included on the single-panel license was added during FAC by someone more expert than I in these matters. In the case of FAs, it's probably best to discuss large-scale changes on the article's talk page before making the changes. At least two other things about the three-panel image might raise questions at FAC: the black border and the borders between panels. Some reviewer would be sure to ask about them, and the nominator would have to be prepared to either justify them or remove them. If I had to take the article back to FAC today I would be inclined to solve these new problems by reverting to the single panel. I'm not saying that the three-panel image can't be justified or made to work, only that replacing the single panel with the wider image has ramifications that might not be apparent at first glance. As to other images, I can't express an opinion before seeing the images. I try to be mindful of the recommendations at MOS:IMAGES about image size and placement. Thanks for your continued interest in the article and in improving the encyclopedia. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-four hours later I sought a second opinion from User:Tillman, who has a continuing interest in the Rhyolite article. He agrees with you that the three-panel version is better than the single panel. You can see our conversation (and join it if you like) on the article's talk page. What I'll try to do as time permits is to spiff up the licensing info for the three-panel version so that my concerns about the license go away. They are fairly trivial since we already know for sure that the image is in the public domain. Before you add any other images to the article, would you mind letting Tillman and me have a look first to see if we have any doubts, thoughts, ideas? Cheerio. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add new photos to the Commons first, it would be helpful. There's not much room for more images in the article itself without violating image and layout guidelines. Also, an image is not in the public domain in the U.S. just because it was created before 1923; it has to have been published before 1923. The Nevada Historical Society images might or might not have been published before then. You have to provide proof that something like Image:Rhyolite1908Jansmall.jpg is in the public domain when you add it to the Commons. If you don't prove provide verifiable proof, the image may be removed at any moment and should not be added to any articles. Your source information, "Nevada Historical Society (site link pending), via my personal collection of pd-us-pre-1923 media found online; will try & backtrace the original site/original source asap" is inadequate, and the image is in violation of WP:V. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've adjusted the license for the panorama and cropped, retouched, and uploaded another version, but one problem remains. My revised version is but 153 kb. Urk! I forgot about the consequences of revising a small version. I'll have a go at retouching something bigger as time allows. Finetooth (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no specialist in photo restoration, but I've learned a few tricks while making derivative maps based on public domain maps. By the way, I stuck with the PNG format you used for the original, but I believe JPG is the preferred format for photos. When I work up a larger version, I'm thinking of uploading a JPG. Any thoughts about the file format? Finetooth (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense. Some of my earliest attempts at maps suffered from just the kind of repeat-edit data loss you describe. Fortunately, I soon learned to work exclusively in PNG format for maps, and I replaced my early low-quality versions with start-from-scratch PNG versions. I'm still learning. I'm also beginning to yearn for a better camera. I like my trusty Nikon Coolpix 990, but it has limitations I'm becoming more aware of as time passes. Finetooth (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1901 photo looks fine and is closer to the right age, as you say. It's fine with me if you want to swap one for the other. Finetooth (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> Looks good; date is good. You asked several notes ago whether that was Rhyolite for sure in the right panel. Yep. The next place, about a half mile south of that mountain in the right frame was Bullfrog, a short-lived and much smaller town consisting mainly of tents and a few small structures of stone and wood. Finetooth (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. I'll eventually do the big one. Finetooth (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patchy1Talk To Me! 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with what you have to say at Wikipedia talk:News suppression, and I also understand your anger. However, you are rambling and shouting are becoming detrimental to the message you are trying to communicate, and I urge you to take a back seat for a while. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed your outraged comment; as I've previously noted on village pump policy: "Creative commons content is in the public domain, and contributed by a very large number of users in good faith, and often without knowing that the current underlying administrative entity resembles a primeval tribe with a chieftain and a few goons. More democracy and accountability in the power structure may prevent unilateral decision-making on censorship or the biased "NPOV" as is the case with many contentious issues. Pnd (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)". I feel open publishing is incompatible with BDFL and/or admin cabals. Why should the person who happens to have founded the project have an eternal stake in making important decisions related to censorship? Why should editors who happen to be around for a while get to bear so much weight in decisions regarding "NPOV facts"? The process of leadership elections (yes, democracy, in spite of WP:NOTADEMOCRACY or whatever), but, wherever possible, flat hierarchical structures with polls, is not just absolutely essential to open publishing, but really implied by its very nature. Pnd (talk)

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Pyst. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Do not blank talk-page comments. --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "punctuation" fix, as your edit summary claims. Take a deep breath and realize that the edits I've made to that page correct the formatting mark-up, offer actual English grammar, and in general make that article suck less. Your edits, disingenuous edit summaries or no, are counterproductive. How about instead you work on Pyst -- I did a second Google search and there are, in fact, reviews of that game that might establish notabililty -- but, as the restoring editor, you have the burden of proof to offer them. --EEMIV (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Do you even see the incoherent language? the errant mark-up on the bulleted list? the non-npov and gameguide trivia? Really, kid, get over yourself. You're restoring tripe and incoherence over succinct and clear info. How about at least use that as a starting point for expansion, rather than that rambling nonsense you keep restoring --EEMIV (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok; here's the thing; i've tried talking to you & it's not useful. you aren't prepared to work co-operatively, you are difficult to communicate with, & you're unpleasant on a personal level. i can no longer wp:agf with regard to your actions & i no longer wish to interact with you. go away. we can fight it out with edit wars, or arbitration, or whatever. unless you are willing to communicate something useful & in a polite, courteous manner in these comments, there is no further point in posting them. for someone who has been on wikipedia as long as you have, you show an amazing lack of manners, lack of tact & lack of ability to work with other people. i am done with you, k, thanx, bye ^__^ Lx 121 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not add content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Aaron Johnson, as doing so is not consistent with our policy of verifiability, and Wikipedia does not consider imdb to be a reliable source. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please make sure you include reliable, verifiable sources when adding material to articles. Also section headings are already emboldened, and are not to have further bold formatting tags placed on them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb is not a reliable source because its content is user-generated, with little editorial oversight over it, much like a wiki. This is not an opinion of mine, but the opinion of those with expertise in RS, as seen in numerous discussions about imdb on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (My opinion was that it was indeed reliable, and up until I learned otherwise, I myself used it as a source.) As for verifiability, that policy requires the source to be cited in the text of the article where the material in question is used. The burden for this is on the person who wishes to add or re-add the material, as seen at WP:Burden, and not those who come across it, for whom removing it is perfectly valid. "Try Google" is not a substitute for this. Nightscream (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 20 or so discussions in that link I gave you, about 15 of them show that imdb is widely considered to be an unreliable source, for the aforementioned reasons, and if you can only assume that this is "jealousy", then that may be because you fail to understand Wikipedia policy. A site whose content is user-generated, and does not have editorial control over much of its material cannot be verified. Whether you or others in the film industry use it is not the criteria upon which this policy is based. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for material in a given article for the reasons also pertaining to reliability. Is this an example of self-hatred? If that's not good enough for you, and you want a specific policy page, please see this one, which specifically disallows imdb to be used.

The burden of proof is not on others to prove material inaccurate, or to find the info from another source. It's on the person favoring the material to provide a verifiable, reliable source. WP:Verifiability and WP:Burden are quite clear on this, as I mentioned above. If you dispute that this is what the policy says, then why not say so? And if you are so enthusiastic about retaining that material, then why not find the source yourself? What logic is there in people insisting on adding material to articles, but insisting that others clean up their mess by sourcing it? Wouldn't the project work much better if each piece of material was sourced by the person adding it?

If you want to have a dispute resolution, then that would indicate that you and I have a disagreement on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Which policy or its interpretation are you disputing? I ask, because "We in the film industry use it" doesn't really qualify as an interpretation of policy, and stating that there "no consensus" on imdb, when there are 15 discussion on the RS Noticeboard showing that users versed in RS say it's unreliable is not likely to be taken very seriously. But if you want, I can request a Third Opinion, or further clarification on the Noticeboard. What would you like to do?

As for the 3 revert rule, if you think I'm in danger of violating it, then you're obviously not familiar with that rule either, since that rule forbids reverting material more than three times within a 24-hour period. Reverting it twice in 27 hours hardly qualifies as "close to violating it". In addition, the 3R rule does not apply to reverting vandalism or blatant policy violations, and indeed, adding unsourced information to articles (the material you added does not include an inline citation) certainly qualifies.

If by "overiding other users on an ongoing basis" you mean that I uphold Wikipedia policies, including WP:V, by reverting edits that violate those policies, generally by editors who are either unaware of or apathetic toward those policies, then yes, that is indeed one of the things I do here, and rightfully so. Nightscream (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in question specifies notability, but the principle remains the same, in that imdb is not considered reliable. If you want to split that hair, we can ask around further if you like.

Your statement regarding my opinion is false. My opinion (that is, my understanding), as I mentioned above, was that imdb was reliable, and I only amended this when I was informed otherwise. Your continued insistence that there is no consensus similarly flies in the face of the fact that numerous other users in fifteen different discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard say it's unreliable. Fifteen discussions filled with editors saying it's not reliable does not constitute a consensus? How so?

The intent of the 3RR is to discourage edit warring. Good Faith reverts of a material that an editor believes clearly violates WP policy, first by one editor, and then by another editor 27 hours later, does not violate the spirit of 3RR, if the intent is to uphold WP policy, and there is no policy interpretation dispute. Once you began disputing the material in question with me, however, you'll notice that I stopped reverting it, as continuing to revert during such a discussion is not permitted. By contrast, you indeed did revert the material once our exchanges began. So please don't try to tell me that somehow it's my reverts that violates 3RR's spirit. When you insist on things like this, you only prove that you don't understand that policy or its proper application. But if you wish to ask others about this and refer them to the article's Edit History, feel free to do so.

Your assertion that my statements about sourcing is an opinion is also contradicted by the WP:V and WP:Burden policy pages I referred you to, another indication that you simply have no interest in learning and following WP's policies, as they clearly disprove your position. If your opinion is that it is more helpful to the project to attempt to fix & verify things, then you might want to put your money where you mouth is by actually doing this with respect to material you insist on including, instead of insisting that others do this for you. If is far more logical and fair for each editor who adds material to an article to be responsible for sourcing it. So far, you haven't even included an inline citation for Johnson's d.o.b.

I notice that you re-linked Johnson's date of birth. Dates should not be wikilinked, unless the date is germane to the topic of the article, as indicated here. Let me know if you wish to challenge this as well. Nightscream (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I forgot to mention this before, but I notice that of the four urls you included in the References section, aside from the two imdb ones, are two fan sites. Fan sites are not reliable sources, nor are they permitted to be included in the External links sections. Nightscream (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Someone responding to my request for Third Opinion on the article's Talk Page has concluded that imdb is not a reliable source. A second editor has apparently agreed, as he reverted the article (though he did this before the Third Opinion was given by the first editor, something I'm not sure about). Would you consider this settled as a matter of policy? Nightscream (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally get around to taking a photo of the front of this high school (the only one I'd not done for Guelph yet) and I find you not only get a picture up before then, you get a better one than what I'd've ended up posting (Image:Guelph_CVI.jpg). I am definately jealous... <G> Tabercil (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think it is something better after renovation.

PawełMM (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, if you want a file to be copied to Wikimedia Commons, you should use the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template rather than just adding the category, as you did here. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Graystone Bird, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Posthumously (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parroty Interactive, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Kachi-kachi Yama, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Vendetta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi. When you recently edited Vienna Dioscurides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Otonabee River, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Eros Vlahos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Game of Thrones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it. A gnome warrior. I bet you already wrote an article of the notaility of bullshit. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pour le Mérite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingua Franca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The issue with User:Shortmeets12 came down to disruptive editing. I did justify my reverts with an edit summary in the beginning, and I also attempted to engage the user on his/her talk page to explain why s/he was replacing the adequate image with one that provided no context as to its relationship to the subject (see this message, and this one). These messages followed earlier warnings by User:BaldBoris about the same edits. As the user did not respond to my messages, nor did s/he provide any edit summary explaining the addition of the image, I warned him/her about continuing to edit in this way. The continued lack of response and addition of an irrelevant image gave me the impression that the editor was not trying to be constructive in editing the article, so I made the decision to block.

While the block notice itself did not specify a time period, this is optional. However, the user and other editors can see in the block log (on the contributions page) how long it will last. Furthermore, the user had the opportunity to contest the block. As you can see from the history of the Reading and Leeds Festivals article, the user re-added the image many times before the eventual block, so the time it took doesn't really come into it.

I hope this satisfactorily explains what happened. ... discospinster _talk 15:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ten Great Buildings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Jelq. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Please do not insert links disallowed by WP's filter by putting spaces as you did in thisedit to ad a forum linkCantaloupe2 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your conspicuous display of contentions against me and another editor in AfD for jelq to sway the consensus is disruptive. I ask that you remove your personal attack. I will take it to ANI on the account of disruptive behavior for WP:NPA otherwise. If you've got issues with editors, take it to DRN. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Wiki administrators.

I was quite angry because you guys blocked my legitimate article on Grand Prince Jinan. After all, this is quite personal because he is my (figuratively speaking) grandfather and Sejong the great is our ancestor’s baby brother. So, I was angry cause you were challenging me.

My article is posted and legitimately posted. My other agents are stop working for your sake. Unblock my website. It is pretty legitimate website that you shouldn’t tinker with, or you can come to South Korea to deal with me.

Lee, Jyong Chul.
Founder and CEO
The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party
(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotDays (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Wikipedia.

I am a Founder and CEO of The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party. I had some real nasty interaction with Wikipedia administrator Qwyrxian. This user is abusing administrator power to block every single Wikipedia account that I am making. Please, unblock my capability to talk to other administrators. Please, help me. Also, he is destroying my article of Grand Prince Royal Jinan. If this user is blocking me because I have multiple accounts, then this user’s account should be blocked too because this user has multiple accounts. Following is a direct quote from Qwyrxian “I have created a second account, User:Quirksian, to be used for professional presentations about editing Wikipedia. It will edit only rarely, and will not have administrator status.”

Lee, Jyong Chul.
Founder and CEO
The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party
(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubrise (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.) LX 121 is not an administrator. 2.) the use of multiple accounts isn't barred provided that the usage do not violate policy as shown in WP:MULTIPLE. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i also don't use multiple accounts o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing in Jelq AfD. If you have personal conflict with someone, it needs to be taken to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Other people have to read through all the clutter. AfD needs to be focused on discussing deletion and inclusion based on argument provided on basis of contents. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello; i didn't appreciate your removing one of my comments. frankly i'd rather take to it to whatever conflict resolution process, than have you "editing" my contribution to the discussion.

if you can cite a legitimate, concrete example of "dispruptive editing" in the discussion on my part, i am willing to consider it.

cheers,

Lx 121 (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is not directly related to why contents merits/does not merit deletion. So, your issues with me, other editors, or copy and paste of the old AfD do not provide anything of value. After your most recent edit, the page is now a distracting mess. attacking users in AfD is considered disruptive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"copy and paste of the old AfD do not provide anything of value" -- have to disagree with you about that point; to me, point raised in a previous deletion discussion obviously merit consideration in a renewed discyssion about the same article.

in this particular case, you yourself invoked the previous discussion being "closed as no consensus". considering the final result was 7 keep, 3 delete, & 1 neutral, i would consider the "call" made by the closing admin to be somewhat questionable. therefore, i chose to introduce the full text of the old debate into the current one, as a rebuttal of your comment.

i don't like using links for this purpose, too many people can't be bothered to go & read them all, myself included.

& define how exactly you mean "a distracting mess" pls?

from what i've seen during my years @ wikipedia, heated discusions tend to get pretty messy as a matter of course...

as for the "issues" between us, my "issue" is based solely on your actions (particularly as an admin, when a "higher standard" should properly apply); i have no "personal" issues with you.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to get all mixed in with the current discussion and bothersome to readers. Again, the link is highly conspicuous. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"highly conspicuous" is not the same thing as "here it is, read it for yourself". & you were the one to introduce the subject as a debating point. i'm entitled to rebut your claim/position, as i choose. if it really bothers you so very much, then you have my "ermission" to collapse (but NOT remove) the c&p section, PROVIDED that you label it with an appropriate header-explanation.

AND you have not limited yourself to removing the c&p text; you have now repeatedly removed my self-authored comments. there is no legitimate reason for you to do this.

one DOES NOT edit another user's comments in a discussion. PARTICULARLY when you are in disagreement with the other user.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please explain why you made this edit? WP:TPOC clearly says " deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi;

well first, it's not a "userpage" it's an anonymous IP page; so "on your page" doesn't entirely apply.

second, if you check the history, you will find that the page was blanked to hide a vandalism warning. it's not really "good form" to hide such material; not everyone who check this ip's talkpage will necessarily think/bother to check the history; particularly BECAUSE it is an anon-ip talkpage.

3rd, just as a technical point, we are talking about page-blanking, not "deleting" per se.

4th, i'm not clear why you deleted MY comment on that anon-up's talkpage? i'm assuming it's not your page, & i don't see what basis you had for eliminating the comment? if you disagreed with it, it would have been more appropriate to say so, there.

& finally 5th: upon reflection, i should probably have said something along the lines of 'it is bad form to try to hide vandalism warnings on your talk page, by blanking it; the information is still availlable for review via "history", so it's not a particularly useful thing to do either.'; with a link to the same rulespage you cited above.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it is bad form, and would have no problem with you telling the IP user that. As for the rest, that's an interesting theory, but nowhere in Wikipedia's guidelines does it say that User talk:174.0.53.34 is not a user talk page or that WP:TALKO does not apply to the talk pages of IP users.

The software that Wikipedia runs on can be configured to not allow IP editors to create or edit their own talk pages, but it has consistently been the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community that whenever possible IP users are to be treated just like logged-in users. See Wikipedia:Editors should be logged-in users and Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. Note that IP editors are not allowed to create new pages except their own user pages and user talk pages. In other words, we went to extra trouble just to allow IP users to have user pages and user talk pages.

Likewise, there is nothing in our policies that supports your theory that blanking is somehow under a different set of rules than deleting. Certainly WP:TALKO doesn't list reverting user page blanking as one of the situations where it is OK to edit someone else's talk page.

What WP:TALK does say is this:

"Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages"

and

"deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted"

and WP:BLANKING says:

"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages ... There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. "

On the other hand, WP:DRRC says:

"If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored " (emphasis in original).

and

"Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked ... regardless of whether the talk page is for a registered editor or for an unregistered "anonymous" editor."

I don't want to make a big deal of this or to imply that it is a serious offense, but I do want you to know that restoring a page after an IP user blanks his own talk page is not allowed, so please don't do that anymore. OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I want to stress that this is at most a very minor issue, and I was on the fence about even mentioning it. I consider it to be akin to forgetting to sign a talk page comment; technically incorrect behavior but really no big deal. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your major improvements to the article Penis enlargement. You have made it encyclopedic, well organized, and reliably sourced. Good work! MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question about sources like IMDB, they are SPECIFICALLY forbidded by our sourcing policy, WP:RS. See the section of that policy named Self-published sources (online and paper), where IMDB is specifically mentioned by name. Sorry, by the information on these sites is contributed by anonymous users with no credible qualifications or editorial oversite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest and your question Why was the article was redacted in the first place? I thought I would add some background to the controversy surrounding the topic. Over the past ten years, the thinking of Biblical scholars has undergone a radical transformation. There is now a growing number of historians that believe:

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher living in a Jewish society (Sitz im Leban).
2. Jesus and later his disciples were active participants in the Oral Tradition of the Second Temple Period.
3. Early Christians, up to the time of the creation of the first Gospels, sustained the Gospel message of Jesus, by sharing the stories of his life and his teachings orally. This Oral Tradition remained vibrant until the destruction of the Temple.
4. These 21st C. scholars generally agree that Mark was the first to write down the Oral Tradition in the form of a Gospel. They also argue that Matthew wrote down the sayings in a Hebrew dialect and that the canonical Gospel of Matthew does not appear to be a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic but was composed in Greek. (ie Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew are two distinct Gospels.)

Bart Ehrman is probably the most formidable Biblical historian of our time. Not only is he required reading at most seminaries, but he has managed to hit New York Times best sellers list. In his most recent work Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83 - 93 and 98-101 Bart D. Ehrman, explains why the oral traditions about Jesus are an important part of the history of Christianity. Some of these oral traditions "were originally spoken in Aramaic, the language of Palestine. These traditions date at least to the early years of the Christian movement, before it expanded into the Greekspeaking lands elsewhere in the Mediterranean." p 87 Ehrman shows that each of the Gospel texts is based on "oral traditions that had been in circulation for years among communities of Christians in different parts of the world, all of them attesting to the existence of Jesus. And some of these traditions must have originated in Aramaic-speaking communities of Palestine, probably in the 30s CE, within several years at least of the traditional date of the death of Jesus." pp 92-93

Then Ehrman explains why Papias, who was born in 63 CE and was a Bishop in the Early Church is so very important in understanding the Oral Gospel Traditions. Papias had written a flve-volume on the Oral Tradition and more importantly, he had direct access to "the sayings of Jesus. He was personally acquainted with people who had known either the apostles themselves or their companions." p 98 Also it was Matthew who reduced the oral tradition to writing as Papias reports, “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.” p 100

Finally although Ehrman takes the position that Matthew reduced the Oral Tradition to a Hebrew dialect (probably Aramaic) he does not believe that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is the same as the Gospel of Matthew in our Bible. Because there is "a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to" what we call Matthew. Ehrman adds, in fact, what Papias "says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels." The Hebrew Gospel written by Matthew is distinct from the Gospel of Matthew that eventually came to be included in Scripture.p 101 Papias then, is "testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly back to the disciples of Jesus themselves."P 101

Maurice Casey is one of Britain's most noted historians. He is Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham, having served there as Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the Department of Theology. His most recent work Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. p 9-12 supports the aforementioned scholarship. There can be little doubt that the language of oral transmission of the Gospel was Aramaic for "Jesus taught in Aramaic, which was also the language spoken by his family and by all his followers" p 108 during the formative tears of Christianity.

Furthermore, he too believes that Matthew collected the oral traditions of Jesus and reduced them to writing. "Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down... There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. p 86 Therefore "it is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language."88 Finally, he agrees with Ehrman that Matthew's Hebrew Gospel has no connection with our Gospel of Matthew. "This tradition is complete nonsense, as most scholars have recognized." p 87

Unlike Casey and Ehrman, James Edwards is a Christian scholar. He is a Bruner-Welch Professor of Theology, an Ordained Presbyterian minister, a contributing editor of Christianity Today, and member of the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton. In his most recent work the The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the Synoptic Tradition, Eerdmans Publishing, 2009. p 2 he confirms that the Oral Gospel traditions were collected by Matthew and that Matthew wrote them down in the Hebrew Gospel. p3

Then Edwards evaluates the testimony of Papias using the criteria of Casey and Ehrman. Papias is supported by 75 ancient witnesses who testified to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Twelve of the Church Fathers testified that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer, either Christian or Non Christian, challenged these two facts. Google Link

So far this 21st C. scholarship has not been well received at Wikipedia. It has been argued the the material from Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, and James Edwards is 'original research' and has no place at Wikipedia. The result is that we are now in a state of gridlock. We have been unable to get past the Oral gospel traditions stub. What is needed are editors who are willing to review the reliable sources and expand the stub into an article written from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I could add my two-cents to the above presentation of the state of the field:

There is more to it than the theoretical musings of modern scholars, (see Skarsaune (2007) Jewish Believers in Jesus pp.326-33). Oskar Skarsaune quotes from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History about the oral tradition reported by Papias. Eusebius quotes a specific example from Papias' Interpretation of the Sayings of the Lord about the eschatological bounty, which Papias says he received as oral tradition from associates of John the Elder. Papias states in the same commentary that he regards oral tradition to be more reliable than written records because it is the first-hand testimony of eye-witnesses or their immediate followers: "For not in those who have much to say did I delight, as do the many, but in those who teach what is true, ... For I assumed that what is derived from books does not profit me so much as what is derived from a living and abiding voice." (H.e. 3.39.3-4). Ignocrates (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I copy/pasted this content from the merge debate for this article. There is a description in Eusebius' Hist. eccl. of at least one example of oral tradition related by Papias. Ignocrates (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a coincidence that all of these reliable sources are being attacked as unreliable. It's the same reason all article content suggesting the possible existence of an original Aramaic gospel or oral tradition transmitted in Aramaic is being deleted. It took me awhile to understand the reason, but now I get it. The good news is that I have been able to improve two of those troubled articles, the Gospel of the Ebionites (currently in FAC) and the Gospel of the Hebrews (still a work in progress). Ignocrates (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a heads up, that discussion was moved to WP:ANI#AfC User's Rash Approvals and you may want to voice your opinion there where it will be more likely seen. Technical 13 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pushkin Museum may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
since February 1961. The Pushkin Museum is still a main depositary of [[Troy]]'s the so-called [[Priam's Treasure] gold hoard removed from [[Troy]] by the German archaeologist, [[Heinrich

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polish Crown Jewels may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
used by the [[Electorate of Saxony|Saxon]] kings and some reminders of the [[Polish monarchs]] (like a cup of Queen [[Jadwiga of Poland|Jadwiga]] so-called ''roztruchan'', or magnificent scale

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alaric II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anastasius I (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion of this rule here and thought you might weigh in with your ideas. Paul venter (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Walker (filibuster) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• films, both of which take considerable liberties with his story: ''[[Burn!]]'' (1969) directed by [[Gillo Pontecorvo], starring [[Marlon Brando]], and ''[[Walker (film)|Walker]]'' (1987) directed by

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your de-prod at Eurasian union youth of Jordan; this is one of several articles all by the same author which all have zero RSs, just blog posts and YouTube links for purported political groups. There's basically no sign these things exist outside of a few people's minds on the internet, and this person is plainly abusing Wikipedia in order to popularise these "nascent" groups.

I can AFD it if you insist, but we've already wasted a week and several editors' time on Russian Defense League's AFD. Per CSD, the onus is not on me to find sources (though I have attempted to do that), but on the article creator. And in the meantime, we're just allowing nearly-nonexistent and definitely non-Notable groups to use Wikipedia to increase their online legitimacy. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect this is exactly the sort of thing that NEEDS an afd discussion; it is not "non-controvertial" to arbitrarily decide that a political organization doesn't merit coverage; that invites abuse. & if you have had to "fight it out" over the other article, then why hasn't anybody objected to the prod on this one? or is it simply that the article's supporters don't understand the process? Lx 121 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for WP:CSD clearly say that " A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)." is a reason for Speedy Deletion, even more so for the slower Prod. It's not even that they haven't shown Notability, they haven't even given any indication that these groups do anything other than being a concept in the mind of the editor. So far as the AfD at Russian Defense League, we're not having to "fight it out", the editors are unanimous that it doesn't meet standard and barely even appears to exist, but in the meantime the article is still up when it shouldn't be, and several more editors had to go muck around checking it out when they could be doing more useful things. I understand (based on your History) that you appear to support a WP:Inclusionist view, and I'm 100% fine with keeping articles that need a lot of work but are about a subject that quite clearly exists and is documented. But again, these two political groups show no sign of being more than WP:MADEUP. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Credit hustling for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credit hustling, its open for discussion. Thanks, Ochiwar (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC) You de-proded it, thats why I am notifying you of the discussion Ochiwar (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you contested the PROD on the above article with the comment that it needs to be discussed. The discussion is now open. Please comment on why the article should not be deleted. Thanks, Ochiwar (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to comment at Talk:CLEAR Framework for Enterprise Architecture#Notability or, better still, add references to some of those independent reliable sources that you found to the article, because I have been unable to find such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you contributed to the page CLEAR Framework for Enterprise Architecture in the past. I have submitted the page for deletion through the WP:AFD process. Please feel free to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CLEAR_Framework_for_Enterprise_Architecture

Nickmalik (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the use (and repeated use) of "evil twins" is probably a WP:BLP violation. I've no idea why you put it in quotes, nor why you feel the need to present it at all. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dear ronz, pls see wp:sarcasm Lx 121 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is it I'm supposed to be looking for that sheds light on this? That you were repeatedly trying to be sarcastic, without regard for BLP, DR, and TALK? --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lx 121. I appreciate your taking the trouble to use an edit summary when you restored what I had reverted, but there was no need to SHOUT. I never claimed the interwiki link was inconsistent with policy; I said that it was inconsistent with other articles on bodily fluids, and it is. From the looks of the Commons page, I'd also suggest that the link offers little in the way of encyclopedic value, but I suppose that's debatable. I don't particularly want to debate it, however. Happy editing! Rivertorch (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, btw. I see you did open a thread at Talk:Pre-ejaculate, where you also shouted. Seriously, you might try italics—or boldface, if you must—for emphasis. Underlining is horribly retro, of course, but even that might be a better option. CAPS look angry and make me think I inadvertently stepped into a hornets' nest. Rivertorch (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello back; i'm sorry, i was honestly rather "put out" by your reversing the edits. inter-wiki linking is a routine, non-controvertial activity. the point isn't to be "encyclopedic", the point is to provide readers with access to supplementary material (i.e.: what we have on the same topic, at other wm projects).

i apologize if i came off harshly; but undoing this type of work not only requires me to go back & do it all over again, it also constitutes borderline vandalism; in that inter-wiki linking by topic is an understood & standard part of basic article construction.

i'm also sorry that it took me so long to reply; i really try not to get involved in the "behind the scenes" discussions too much, & i'm terrible @ keeping up on my correspondence. xD

Lx 121 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you removed the PROD tag I placed on the article. I wonder what exactly you'd like to merge with the artist's article, as a synopsis of the album is already available, and I don't think the entire track listing needs to be included. TCN7JM 11:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi; please don't take it personally, i'm not a fan of prods in general. it seems like a bad & unnecessary policy to me, in multiple ways.

as regards the point you raise; honestly, if you want to remove the separate article & redirect it, then i think the track listing info does belong in the band discography. it clearly & measurably improves the quality & usefulness of the article. if the band is notable enough to merit coverage, then it is desirable that the coverage should be thorough.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. If they weren't all released separately as singles, I don't think the full track listing needs to be listed. TCN7JM on the Road (talk)