User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive4

24.115.30.42

Help edit exploding sheep, see discussion there, I don't know how to edit it

Yeoman's work combatting the spam on Alexander the Great. How do we get that IP banned for a few days? I can do it on my own Wiki, but who has the power here? Lectiodifficilior

Actually, I haven't been experimenting with Wikipedia...

In fact, I've been tagging nonsense pages for speedy deletion. I didn't create those contentless "boobie" articles, if that's what you're referring to. I found them in new pages and tried to tag one of them for deletion. Now, apparently, an admin has deleted all of them. I think there may be a problem with the wiki software, since this has happened to me before. 151.199.192.102 17:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I must have misread the history. Carry on the good work. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan census

Thanks. I was editing the Pakistan talk page, but hadn't hit the Save page button yet. I followed the link that you mentioned and looked at it. They don't explain where they got their numbers, which are inconsistent with accepted census data. AnalyticHistorian 09:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I changed the data to reflect this. I think under the circumstances it is perfectly possible that the census underrepresents Christians. DJ Clayworth 04:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan: Section on Status of Christians

I had to remove the text as it was copyrighted. I just want to tell you that I have no judgement on the content of the section. My objection here is that the content placed is copyrighted and taken from another website. ~~Please do not just copy and paste from websites in creating content, that violates the Wikipedia's code of conduct.~~ Thanks. --Ragib 06:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the one sentence that I put in the article on Pakistan then a) it's one sentence. That's a legitimate quote. b) It's US government. DJ Clayworth 00:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My profound apologies. I should have been careful about checking who put the copyrighted content there. It turns out that it was put there by SamTr014 (talk · contribs), sorry for the mixup. In any case, I removed the content as it was copy righted. I did not remove the stats and info you placed there. Sorry once again, and hope there is no hard feelings. --Ragib 01:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. No hard feelings. DJ Clayworth 04:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You removed the NPOV-dispute tag with the comment, "remove tag on an entirely uncontroversial section." I've restored the NPOV flag to the section. The objection is explained on the talk page:

The following statement is non-NPOV and uses weasel words: "However, there have been numerous allegations that Christians in Pakistan have been subject to systematic persecution." 68.20.214.76 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) No one is saying that Christians do not face challenges in a society that is over 96% Muslim. But there are no laws or policies whose purpose is to persecute Christians. The elite of the country is sympathetic to Christians, having been mostly educated in CHristian schools - both the President and the Prime Minister attended Christian schools and colleges. Most of Pakistan's nurses are Christian. The general population is not much aware of Christian-related issues, except when Christians are attacked by terrorists. When there was an attack on nurses in the northern Punjab, for example, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy from the local population there. Many thousands came to offer their condolences. People in Pakistan mostly have a fovorable view of these dedicated educationists and health workers, and because of them, Christians in general. That is why I would say there is no systematic persecution of Christians. 68.20.214.76 13:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Pakistan, and attended Christian schools and went to a Christian college there. My feeling is that relations between Muslims and Christians are on the whole warm and friendly. Note that I am not saying that there haven't been allegations that Christians have been persecuted in Pakistan. I am objecting to the lack of a neutrality and balance - the other side of the picture is not presented. 68.20.31.13 13:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote what I wrote because we needed something to go in a section that had been entirely eliminated due to copyright violation. It was the most neutral thing I could come up with without doing extensive research. I'm not an expert on Pakistan, so maybe you should write something that is neutral. Here are some reerences:

DJ Clayworth 13:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move vandal

Block page move vandals indefinitely, not for 24 hours. CryptoDerk 20:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Will do. I just did whatever to get the block in place in the shortest possible time. DJ Clayworth 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I figured that's what happened. The main issue is that if two blocks are set (1 indefinite, 1 for X hours), both will be removed when X hours have passed. So, if you do block someone for 24 hours come back later and make it indefinite. This has already been brought up with the dev team I think, and in the upcoming versions of Mediawiki it should be fixed. CryptoDerk 20:38, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Waste of Time

Hi Tony. I just wanted to make sure that when you unprotected this page you were aware that it has been the target of a sustained and organised campaign to modify it as much as possible? DJ Clayworth 13:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. What concerned me was that the article was deleted outside the VfD discussion that was continuing. If it was being vandalized the obvious solution was to protect and I don't understand why it was pre-emptively deleted like that. I think a rerun of the VfD would be best if people still think it needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bereans

What to do? Bereans is an interesting topic whose development is being squashed by one user. The Alert doesn't seem to have worked. Do you think the discussion has satisfied the criteria - at least two people trying and failing to address the problem - to justify escalating the RFC process either as a content dispute or user conduct dispute? RayGirvan 10:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. I think we're going to have to take the complaints procedure further. This is getting silly (well, it always was). Repeatedly introducing POV material and destroying constructive edits is definitely cause for a user complaint. I'll back you up in any such action. RayGirvan 13:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not escalate it to that level yet. With a few people watching this article we should be able to keep it in a reasonable state. If things get worse we'll call in the 'official' help.

OK: I'm happy (that's not quite the word) to see how it plays out. I'm not going to argue the toss with Emico; as long as we work strictly according to the Wiki stance, it'll occupy the high ground should it come to later procedures.

Incidentally, I think the good news is that the Bereans article is already better than it was when I first saw it a week ago. I didn't know about the Barclay Bereans before this. DJ Clayworth 13:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, David. I frequently contribute to the Iglesia ni Cristo, Felix Manalo and Erano Manalo articles and also feel that emico (now corrected!) disrupts the POV and edit processes towards his own opinion while frequently reverting articles multiple times in one day. I agree that we need to take action to stop him from placing his own POV on Wikipedia articles. --Onlytofind 05:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone added a link for Emico's Request for Comment but hasn't added a page. I quickly created an incomplete page, and I hope you can fill in the rest before the sysops cancel it out. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 22:18, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Last mile problem

Oops!

World War II picture

Hi! Just to let you know I've added my opinions to Talk:World War II regarding the picture in support of your argument. Mark 22:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico

I've given him a final chance before I take this to arbitration.--Onlytofind 03:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hellenic Genocide

I did discuss at the talk page right after I reinstated it. I don't see a reply from you there. --Delirium 17:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

My reply is there now. Let's go there. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Responded; I'm not going to push the issue further, so feel free to re-delete. --Delirium 18:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The "Bulldog" dyn ip-vandal

I noticed your ip-range block on 84.9.0.0/17 which of course helped for the 15 minutes it lasted.

When the vandal returned, I tried blocking the somewhat shorter range 84.9.64.0/19, and unless my calculating skills are worse than terrible, that should do in this case. I think... At least he didn't return for the period I blocked him. I believe the range he is vandalising from is 84.9.64.0 - 84.9.95.255, which my block should cover. I blocked him first for 20 minutes, using that range, and again for 30 minutes when he returned. I'm tempted to make it even longer if he returns again and I'm still around... Shanes 00:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye too. I miscounted the bits the first time. I also deliberately didn't say how long he was blocked for the first time on anywhere he might read it. DJ Clayworth 01:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, stupid me didn't think of that when I messaged you. I'll be more discreete in the future. Feel free to censor me ;-). Anyway, he seems to have gone to bed now. It's late here in Europe. Shanes 01:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Thank you DJ Clayworth for saying the right things to Mr.Peter Lee...
Maybe you can help me in this matter... I am working on an article about Genseiryu karate, but it takes time since there are two sides to that story. That is to say, there are two groups that have a story. We (our side) recognize that, but the other group doesn't. They only see their point of view. Now, this guy, Peter Lee, finds it necessary to delete ALL our text on the article that is about OUR side of the story. He then claims to have changed the work of a vandalist to make sure a moderator won't notice it. On his user page he also claims to be the "official contact person of GENSEIRYU in Europe", which is not true. (The most he can be, is a contact person for the karate style Butokukai)
I am working on a version that tells the neutral point of view of both sides. I will make two overlay pages on the article where each party can have a say. He can have his say on this after it's finished, but he won't stop deleting the text. Over and over again, he keeps going on. Other moderators have corrected it also a few times now, but he won't stop. He DOES know the rules of Wikipedia. He knows that if this continues, eventually the article will be totally deleted and blocked by some moderator that gets fed up with this, that is what he wants and that (unfortunately) is what happened to the Dutch article!!! He wants to see NO text, rather than anything about our side of the story.
Now, I have put a WIP sign on the article, but still he does not respect that and keeps deleting great parts of the article. How can he be stopped? Block???
I do understand that you can't really know who is telling the truth in this matter, but simply look at it the Wikipedia way: he is deleting large amount of texts that others put in. We don't do that! It's then easy to recognise the 'bad guys'... Please DON'T block the article, that means that they win! Thank you for your help! -- MarioR 01:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GENSEIRYU

Dear DJ Clayworth

I thank you for your comments, but I believe your comments are well off here. First of all let me clear something up. The texts about GENSEIRYU in the Dutch section were edited so many times, that the reader would not know his head from his toes. Also whenever something was written, just a few minutes later everything was changed. Then finally, the Wikipedia site stopped the article. I must say that this Wikipedia idea (free encyclopedia) is a clever and good idea. But when people continue to edit things they have no knowledge or, or even worse, keep posting things they definately know is untrue, I would actually call it vandalism in the "first degree". If I should be banned for even "just" 24 hours, when all I do is changing the text to hold only true and DOCUMENTED text, then I must say something is REALLY wrong with the Wikipedia site. If you annot see the this, I must honestly say, that you should stay out of it. Please be aware that English is my second language (not native), and no insult whatsoever was intended. The vandlism in indeed not on my side, actually you should read the true contents (researched contents), before accusing me of such. I hope that the Wikipedia site is not for untrue, undocumented texts with false and untrue propaganda. I hope the Wikipedia site is a serious site with the intend to supply correct information to the public. If not, then I must say that I am really wasting my time here. Please correct me if I am wrong, but correcting false propaganda has never been wrong in my book. I hope it is not so in your's. Thanks.

Hello again DJ Clayworth. Sorry to bother you with this again.

Yes, the Wikipedia on the Dutch side was changed over and over again, because the man writing you here (his name is Peter Lee, since he 'forgot' to sign) and his friends found it necessary to delete big parts of texts we had put in. We never deleted any of their text, unless it was an opinion or a definite untrue fact. The site was blocked eventually, but they actually cheered to this! They wanted the whole text to be removed all along! So through persisting vandalism you can actually get an article to be removed and blocked??? I hope that is not what Wikipedia really teaches their moderators...

In this situation, you can clearly see the vandalist: I am working on a NPOV article and put a W.I.P. sign on the article Genseiryu. Mr.Lee does not respect this and vandalises the text over and over again, in the hope to get the whole article deleted and blocked. This is no way of working. Please, do what you have to do and block this Mr. Peter Lee again, but for a much longer period than just 12 hours, so I can finally start working on the NPOV article. I am waisting my time with this guy... Thank you! --MarioR 22:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration has been started on Emico

I have proceeded to start arbitration against Emico- please add your comments.--Onlytofind 03:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[1]

Opinion

Your opinions are earnestly sought on for deletion:Crowns. To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salvation Edits

Sorry, I seem to have stepped on your edits. Please note the talk page with suggestions by Jim Ellis questioning my use of Restoration Movement and "need" vs. "condition". Please also note my response.

Pspadaro 21:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I didn't realise there was a difference. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great work on the Jesus article with the notification tags. Huzzah on attempting to reach NPOV status >.>

I messed up a move with Ivić Pašalić

I was wondering if you could help me fix a move gone bad. I wanted to move Ivic Pasalic to Ivić Pašalić but the title of the article doesn't show with the proper name when I view the new article. I'm not too sure if I messed up the special characters or if my browser is having trouble displaying them. (Although the name displays fine here.) If you have a minute, could you take a look at it and fix any errors I have created. Thanks. --NormanEinstein 14:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having the same trouble you are. I'm going to put out a called in Wikipedia:Village pump for someone who knows more about non-latin characters than me. DJ Clayworth 14:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on the issue there. --NormanEinstein 14:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I ended up putting it on Wikipedia:Help desk which I think might get a faster response. DJ Clayworth 15:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reverts

You're also not meant to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Please stop.

So anything you disagree with counts as vandalism?

No, removing large chunks of text like this counts as vandalism. DJ Clayworth 14:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That section was entirely POV. Imagine if there was a section in Creationism about why creationists are idiots (which they are, but still should be NPOV). Also, kindly stop using your sock puppets to get round the revert limit.

- - That quote above has described in one sentence why you should absolutely not be allowed to edit the Wikipedia, Emico.--Onlytofind 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying I disagree with the stuff I removed/changed, but i strongly believe in NPOV. So it's not "just because you don't believe some historical event", which is a loaded statement anyway, and my edit did not dispute that, it actually made it clear that the given cause of that event is not universally accepted to be what it was stated to be.

- - - If you do, then why did you make that POV statement above?--Onlytofind 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who you think is my sockpuppet, but I haven't edited as anyone but myself. If you think that large amounts of text need to be changed, then you shuld discuss it in the talk pages. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should I start a RfC on gcessor?

I would like to know if you think his behavior on the Iglesia ni Cristo page has warranted the creation of one.--Onlytofind 09:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also believe that Mr. Cessor has taken one of your quotes completely out of context:Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#A_good_statement_by_DJ_Clayworth

Mot having really been involved with gcessor, I don't feel I'm in a position to comment. I'll look thought. DJ Clayworth 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

poll

Poll There is a poll in the talk page of Macedonian Slavs article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to Macedonian without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

talk:Christina Aguilera

Thanks for the heads up on the talk page revert. I think WP's servers are acting up again. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)}

Yep, I saw some weird stuff in there. I think going back to the last known complete version was best. DJ Clayworth 22:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bad thing is the IP who vandalized the page continues to revert to his edits of that talk page. I already put a WP:VIP on him, as well as warned him --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 22:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Banana Dance

Ok, so you started to VfD, and then the anon blew away the tag, but still commented on the page, so the page was created. I finished the process, and _then_ read you changed your mind. I think we should probably continue with the VfD, but in light of the additional information and stub (especially if it expands more) it should survive. Comments? Wikibofh 17:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. Sorry about the confusion. I added the VFD tag since the article looked silly, and THEN decided to do a google check before I wrote the VFD page. Then I went back to remove the VFD tag, but I got edit conflicts, first with the author, then you putting the VFD notice back (quite correctly), then I decided to remove it but by then there was already a comment on the discussion page, so I decided to leave it.... maybe I need a little break. I think I'm Wiki-ing too hard. DJ Clayworth 17:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No worries. I did a google search too in order to try to see what my vote would be, and couldn't decide. :) Given those results I think I'm going to vote to make this a disambig and move the lyrics/moves to wikisource. Again, no worries. :) Wikibofh 17:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello from Will Dockery

Thanks for the note, Dave... just got here and am getting the hang of it...

I've never been here before, fascinating place!

Will Dockery

[[2]]

Plane crashes

Thanks for your answer at WP:RD about rich people killed in aviation accidents. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking July 8, 2005 20:53 (UTC)

German Church tax

Dear Clayworth,

the church tax does exist in Germany, however the details you give are not accurate (church - or charity - of your choice is the Italian way)

Not all religious groups do raise church. If a group is sufficently big, sufficently stable and not at odds with the constitution, they can attain the status of "corporation of public law" and they then can among other things (against a fee) use the state's revenue system of raising "membership fees" from their members (the amount is usually a percentage of from the income tax). Currently this status is held by the Catholic Church, the mainline Protesant EKD and the Jewish congregation. Also, Jevovah's Wittnesses have recently succeeded in a court case giving them this status as well, but so far they haven't decided on how to deal with their newly won rights.

So you give church tax to the "church of your choice" because you are a member of that church, but not to any other church. You also can opt out only by withdrawing official membership. If you don't belong to a church/religious group that raises that church tax (as explained above) you don't have to pay anything (in contrast with the Italian model).

Str1977 19:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Clayworth.

"Is the church tax an 'opt in' or 'opt out'; i.e. if you do nothing (say when you start work for the first time) is money taken from you for a church?"

It depends on whether you are a member of a church that raises church tax. If you are, you pay church tax (if you're liable to pay income tax) but you can "opt out" by "opting out" of the church. - If you're not a member, you don't pay church tax, but you can "opt in" by "opting into" the church.

"Is the amount taken from you determined by the church, or the government, or do you choose how much?"

The amount is fixed by law: currently, I think, it is 10 per cent of your income tax. In Bavaria it's 9 per cent but there is an additional payment ("Kirchgeld") to your local parish, but with this the amount is not fixed. (Sometimes tables are issued, but these are only for orientation.)

What I don't know is whether these percentages are the same for every church or whether some are "cheaper" or "dearer". (I don't know, I've only belonged to one and I'm not intending to change that.) The figures i gave are valid for the Catholic Church and those of the Protestant church, I think, are the same. Don't know about the Jews. There might be differences since it's the choice of a church whether to raise church tax. As I said, JW haven't yet decided what to do with their newly won rights.

"If you join one of these registered churches do you get money taken away from you automatically, or do you have to give the church (or the government) separate permission for that?"

The money is taken along with the other taxes. If you are an employeé, it is taken together with the wage tax by your employer to the revenue service and at the end of the year you can calculate whether you paid too much and get the difference back. If you are self-employed you pay the money with the annual income tax. I know, German tax laws are complicated.

"I hope that's not too much trouble."

Not at all. Str1977 22:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica, that Nation

Our friend 198.61.20.7 reverted your redirect of the peculiar article Jamaica, the Nation, which exists currently for reasons unknown to me. Just to give you a heads up. I'll be watching it as well. EvilPhoenix talk 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Andy Armitage

To whoever sent me an email about Wikipedia as "Andy Armitage" please tell me what your username is on Wikipedia so I can find out which edit you are talking about. DJ Clayworth 00:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anons and Vfd

I noticed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Release Management that you said that anonymous users shouldn't be allowed to make vfd nominations. I've looked on the relevant deletion policy pages, and haven't seen anything to suggest this. Have I missed it somewhere, or have you made a mistake? KeithD 17:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that I may be wrong. Sometimes policies are spread out over different pages though. If you find anything then let me know. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can make a nomination, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users." [3] btw- you made this claim on one of my VFDs as well. No harm done though, I think we can leave your user id here on Wikipdeia ;) --66.216.68.28 17:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. You are absolutely right. DJ Clayworth 17:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was just going to say I'd also just found the page confirming what the evil anonymous user just said! Glad we all know for sure now. KeithD 17:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Release Management

Please see my comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Release Management and consider re-casting your vote for transwiki per Harmil. Thank you for your time. -Harmil 22:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II renaming (round XXXIV)

You may have noticed *mega sigh* that yet another user has dragged up the lets rename Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom farce, only 9 days after the last vote ended. (What next? A vote every day on the issue next?) I have proposed instead this vote on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page:

That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this goddamned issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months.

Hopefully this will put this nonsense to bed for at least 6 months. Your (hopefully final) vote would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD / subst

When you create a VfD page, don't forget to subst the vfd2 template. That is, use {{subst:vfd2}}, not {{vfd2}} -Harmil 16:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Community Grid

Hello, before you read on I would just like to say that I have so far only posted this to a limited amount of administrators for consultation. If you have any objections to its wider distribution or suitability for Wikipedia please let me know.'

Hi, I would just like to invite you to find out about the World Community Grid Human Proteome Folding Project. This is a purely philanthropic project and supported by a "blue chip" corporation in IBM. There is an ability to join a team once you have downloaded the software and another user has already established the Wikipedia team.

I would like to emphasise that I do not want to pressure anybody into feeling obligated and I understand the limited computer resources/access available to some. Feel free to pass this message on and thank you very much for your time, Mark83 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significant objections have been raised to this. Mark83 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A missing vfd vote on Baradise

You added the tag but did not follow through. The article is at Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense/Baradise Please fix it. Thanks. --Woohookitty 21:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vfd: industrial TELEVISION

please google "industrial TELEVISION" and let me know if we're worthy or "of note"...

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [4] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the rewrite of the WW2 article?

Hello DJ Clayworth!

I'm thankful you basically liked my WW2 montage (I hope you noticed that I answered you on the WW2 talk page).

Another thing: I have noticed that your name frequently appears on the WW2 talk page, so I guess you must have been heavily involved in the article. I have read about the "rewrite" on the talk page, but it seem the rewrite has not been updated for quite some time. I have posted a message on the rewrite talk page, but no-one has answered. Since I myself lately have done quite a few contributions to the original WW2 article, and am thinking of doing more, I wonder:

Do you know the status of the rewrite? (The link to the rewrite: World_War_II/temp).

I would appreciate a message from you on my talk page.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense places

Ok, you'll need to kill this and this, too. Alphax ^τεχ 14:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-perimeterisation Cleanup?

I understood that there were four steps in adding Cleanup to an article

  1. Make sure this is the page you should be using. (See the section "Related pages" below.)
  2. Find the appropriate tag(s) in the table below.
  3. Add the tags to the top of the article.
  4. Add an explanatory note to the article's talk page and/or list the article on Wikipedia:Cleanup.  <<<<<

What was/were the reason(s)you added the Cleanup to the De-perimeterisation article, I am new to this Wiki thing and want to align and learn.... Adrius42 18:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

Edinburgh Fringe

Hello. I've reinstated the material I wrote about Masterson's productions, because they have been a major aspect of the Festival in recent years. The plays have attracted a lot of attention: they are certainly worthy of a mention since The Odd Couple has become the fastest selling play in the history of the festival.

I've restructured the opening sentence to put the emphasis upon the USP of the plays (combining serious actors with stand ups) rather than Masterson. I hope this addresses your concern. The JPS 15:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand and agree with your point. I'd like to work to expand the entire article (so that Masterson's work will fit within the context of a 58 year old festival). I'm in the process of adding a section on the Gilded Balloon (which I'm just copyediting now), and I plan to add more stuff about the festival soon. As you say, the article as it stands is not very big at the moment: we need rto expand it (esp since it's supposed to tbe the largest arts festival in the world!)

It is open to abuse, though. From a NPOV, Masterson's productions are notable - but we're bound to get a bunch of undergrads attempting to promote their own innovative take on Shakespeare... The JPS 16:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are your opinions on the WWII page?

On the WWII page: Thank you again for your answer, and for you appreciation of the new chronology. It was quite challenging to do and nerve-wrecking to await the responses! I'm glad you liked it. If was not sure if I liked it myself, as one gets blind after a while, but now I am pretty satisfied. Considering your answer, I have some other questions:

What is personal view on the biggest problems of the WW2 article as it is now (why it has lost it's status as FA?).
On Talk: World War II#Too many links I noticed a discussion in which you participated regarding too many links in the article. I agree with the points and wish to have a go on it. In the talk, you mentioned that dates & years links should be kept due to formatting. Question: Why "years"? How are the differently formatted?
Which other major articles on WWII do you believe are in the most need of contributions/organization/attention?

As before, I would appreciate a message from you on my talk page - please note I have created a section called "DJ Clayworth" where you can answer..

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User FOS: more 3RR violations

Hi,

Feel free to comment on User FOS' repeated 3RR violations on several pages this morning, at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 17:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at [5] as to Codex and his spreading lies. No violation occured. He is again lieing and twisting facts to repress NPOV and truth on wikipedia, and it disgustes me. FestivalOfSouls 17:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category_Talk:Christian mythology. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

linguistic imperialism

Hi. I saw that you posted on the linguistic imperalism page so I thought I'd let you know that I have made some changes. A lot of people complained about the lack of neutrality so I added a considerable section about the critics of the theory as well as well as describing the theroy a bit more in detail. Let me know if you have any comments and suggestions. --Daniel Spichtinger 19:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin von Tischendorf

Hi, "Fourth Ave" just asked me to do a merge on Constantin von Tischendorf, and so I recently did so, maybe someone can check the merge over... Sorry but I just had to send you a private email, please check your inbox! 172.173.192.43 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Austin (politician)

I noticed you voted on this VfD. There are 7 others that are basically the same. I'm posting this note to everyone who voted for one and not the others, so we can get at least a consistent result when they are all processed. If you could vote on any of the below that you so far haven't I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks:

At some point someone should hammer out a consistent policy on politicans of this vein, but until then case-by-case voting is king. Getting the same result across the board will be helpful for now. -R. fiend 23:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!

I guess we both removed that VfD tag simultaneously! Your pretty quick on the draw pardner! I'm a fellow Ontarian BTW. See ya! Hamster Sandwich 20:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPolice

These articles were neither nonsense nor tests. I have no need of the sandbox.

How else can a non-member have a debate with so much censorship? Channel your energies towards real vandalism, the blanking, profanity, obscenity, personal abuse and other miscreant behaviour that pervades this so-called organ of truth. Did either of you read and comprehend the content of these 'articles'? This comes from bitter experience - read the WikiPolice text carefully, this is what it is like as a new user trying to make a serious contribution. We are reduced to these tactics in an attempt to evade capture by the WikiPolice.

I will be posting the text of these articles elsewhere to engender debate about how this elitist regime can be made more democratic. No doubt this will be removed as well, the campaign will go on regardless.

Regards Officer Clayworth, you may now consult with fellow members. --84.66.181.168 14:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinions, which are always welcome. You should note a few things.

The main Wikipedia space is the wrong place to have a debate about these things. If you have a serious point to make I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump.
If you have real complaints about how you have been treated there are places to complain about this. I suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment as a place to start if you have a particular person who has abused you.
I have no idea what serious contributions you have made so I can't comment, but if you tell me what you have been trying to do and what happend I can have a look for you. Post an example of what you were trying to add to Wikipedia here and I will see whether it is likely to be appropriate or not.
I fully read and understood the text of the articles. They were, as I said, in the wrong place.
Wikipedia is not a place where you can do anything you feel like. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, and anything that doesn't help that will be strongly discouraged, and prevented if necessary.

DJ Clayworth 14:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I accept what you are saying, of course, my aim was not to vandalise the WikiPedia but born out of frustration at the attitude of many veteran contributors - shoot first, ask questions later. I have been editing in a minor way for a few months now and do do not keep a detailed record of contributions. I am afraid, however, that I have little faith in the 'official' organs available for debate here - 'The Pump' is manned by the WikiPolice; nobody has 'abused' me as such, plenty of arrogance though, and the RFC is also manned by the WikiPolice.

I take on board your advice that this material was in the wrong place, but I intend to reproduce it, for the record, on the talk page: User Talk:84.66.181.168. If you object to this, please discuss before 'WikiPolicing' it. Until such time as I have enough faith in the WP to open an official account, I will regard that as my talk page.

Thanks --81.76.91.32 15:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (Formerly 84.66.181.168)[reply]

You sound very frustrated. Let's see if we can help with whatever problem you have been having. There is no need for you to keep a complete record of contributions - Wikipedia does that for you. If you tell me here what articles you were editing, an idea of what the problem was, and approximately what days or months you were editing we can find out what happened. DJ Clayworth 16:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer of help, it is very much appreciated. However, I do not wish to embroil you in a huge 'electronic paper chase', based on my dim recollections of what I may, or may not, have edited at some unknown point in the past. I am frustrated, as you correctly surmise, with my WP experience so far, and I am thinking how best to move forward. Perhaps I will create an account to see if there is any perceptible difference in reception of my edits - who knows?

In the meantime, I still propose to reproduce the content of the WikiPolice 'articles' on the talk page: User Talk:84.66.181.168. This will obviously not be in the main WP namespace, probably nobody but me will see it, but it will be an important historical record of what I percieve to be a valid complaint. Eventually I will likely move the discussion into the appropriate WP realm.

Thank you again for your efforts. Regards. --81.76.91.32 16:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict

Thanks for protecting the Holy Father. You were one click ahead of me at every step!!! I wonder if special indulgence comes with that?! :-) Psy Guy 17:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.131.178.120 and copyrights

I know you're an experienced user and an admin, but a gentle reminder nonetheless, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I believe this user is attempting to make honest contributions. His original entry on the Cupeño might have looked like it was copyrighted, but neither you nor I could find evidence that it was. As such, I don't think a case can be made that it was copyrighted material. The user has made other contributions which might be copyrighted as well, but I could not find evidence of it on some of his articles.

I significantly improved the Cupeño article using substantial text from a U.S. government source, and removed the copyvio notice from the page. Your copyvio notice edit was done shortly before I saved my edits which obviated the need for a copyvio notice. I know procedure is to create a temp page instead, but there's no proof it was a copyvio and the current article does not violate copyright. --Durin 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, and I may have been overzealous here. If so I apologise, to you and him. However the user added a number of articles which were clearly copyright, and a number of others in exactly the same style (which is not a normal style) but which we can't find sources for. I strongly suspect that they are copied from somewhere. Anyway, I left the user a friendly message. DJ Clayworth 18:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico →Raul654 20:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I need your advice...

Since I have talked to you before, and you are an experienced wikipedian, I really don't know who else to ask for advice on the following:

A German Wikipedia project manager has asked me the following:

Hi. Would you want to start Projekts in this (referring to the english wiki) and the swedisch wiki like to coordinate the collaboration? It would be great. :) The the main goal of the Projekt is to enhance the whole thematic complex and to create a Portal with Links in it. For example we work on a Wikibook of the Battle of Normandie and we are trying to get a high quality standard for the articles. I've seen your Edits in some articles like Operation Tonga and watched your Userpage. There I found, that you are interessted in WW I and II and so on, and dedicated to ask you. It would be also great, when you would like to ask other Users. Regards and also good luck, John N.

Now, what I would like advice on is

Do you think it is a good idea to start an English WikiProject on WWII?
What do you think the scope should be (WWII, WWI, World Wars, Imperialism etc.)?
How much effort do you think would be needed from the coordinator (e.g. frequency of project page updates etc.)
How do I know I would be competent enough as a coordinator (as he suggests)? I am after all quite a wikipedian newbie .

I would appreciate a message from you on my talk page - please note I have created a section called "DJ Clayworth" where you can answer...click here to go there.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-webmaster (talk · contribs) Dna-Dennis 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises#A_new_suggestion

I've added a reply to your concern about the proposed disclaimer. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises#Vote

A quick comment on your recent vote on the above. You gave first preference to "Do nothing" but said this was for "while discussion continues." What I'm trying to get a sense of is what people see as an ultimate solution — in other words, "Do nothing" means nothing, ever. I'll try to make this clearer in the instructions, but please reconsider your vote. JHCC (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will. However you have missed what I think is the best solution - retain Christian mythology and create a new category for cases where mythology would be disputed or insulting (primarily Bible stories). DJ Clayworth 20:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

note left by anon on your user page

dont delete me

16:20, September 2, 2005 User:84.12.156.118

Moved by FreplySpang (talk) 16:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

RfA

DJ, Please support my request for adminship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom

Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Christian mythology

There is a new proposal at Category talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. JHCC (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Soliders

Oops! Okay. Thanks! Fergananim 21:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete Battle of Yungay?

It's hardly "nonsense"...a Google search gives 1,120 results, referring to an actual battle fought between Chile and an alliance of Peru and Bolivia. It was, in its original form, difficult to read, yes--but that means cleanup, not speedy. Kurt Weber 19:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although the battle is real, I looked at the first few paragraphs of the article and they looked like complete gibberish to me. If other people can understand it and want to re-create it I'll be happy to leave it there. DJ Clayworth 20:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original contributor obviously had a poor grasp of English and wiki syntax, yes, but it was human-parsable and salvageable. Kurt Weber 20:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to check out Wikipedia:Votes_for_Undeletion#Battle_of_Yungay...turns out it was a machine translation of the equivalent article on the Spanish 'pedia. Not trying to be an ass about this or anything, just pointing it out... Kurt Weber 20:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JibJab's "This Land" Lyrics

This page is a recreation of a page previously deleted, and thus it meets the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. In addition, beyond the copyright problems, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia anyway since it is song lyrics and not an encyclopedia article. :) I think this time around we also need to eliminate the redirect to it and the link to that redirect from the JibJab article. Jdavidb 17:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Go ahead and speedy. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

userpage vprotected

I have vprotected your user page due to the fact that an IP using an AOL proxy seems to have taken a liking to vandalizing it and since it's AOL locking your userpage would have no effect, when you would like to have it unprotected please post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and an admin will unprotect the page as soon as they can. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Actually I'm going to remove the protection notice, since I'm the only person who should be editing that page anyway. DJ Clayworth 13:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Grand Lodge of England

This page was recently created. I understand that a previous version may have been copyright violation. Would you mind checking this new version, please? DJ Clayworth 15:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the many versions posted to numerous different titles was a copyvio in that they were all posted by the RGLE (or half of it). All of the previous versions were gross style violations in that they were crude copy and pastes from the massive RGLE website. At least the present version was written for Wikipedia.

User:Flaxton has, I think, summed up the RGLE accurately, thus: I don't think the RGLE actually exists in any real sense of the words. I suspect that the UGLE (the real English masons) attitude is act as though they don't exist - even to condemn them is to give them publicity they don't deserve. I am split between following this line and removing all mention of them from Wikipedia or putting up a very short article (which will need protection) to say they are not recognised by any well established masonic body anywhere in the world - see Regular Masonic jurisdictions.

But since the last word was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular Grand Lodge of England, we will follow that. Will you please speedily delete it and rgle - so it does not look like my personal vendetta - which it is not. I saw this article months ago and decided it was wrong. Further research confirmed the fact. All I am doing is following the case! Incidentally does if you have a PHDWZ in DPDFZ it does not matter (edit summary to the article) mean anything to you? Perhaps it is cryptic masonspeak.

I think we can got straight to {{deletedpage}} status. It has not been recreated many times but seen in the context of all the other postings listed in User:RHaworth/sb2#RGLE, I think it is justified.

Other notes in User:RHaworth/todo#RGLE and in the article's deleted talk page. -- RHaworth 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Ontario for instructions.--Rmky87 03:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinterval

Regarding the Kinterval page:

My name is John Davidson. I am a student at The Dalton School in New York City. I created the Kinterval page as a commentary on a recent administrative decision at my school. During the course of today, someone using my school's ISP address made some inappropriate changes to Wikipedia, and you responded by marking the Kinterval page for deletion. I will eliminate this page in the next day or two, and I would be very grateful if you could remove the deletion request temporarily.

I am truly sorry for the inappropriate action taken by someone within the walls of my school today.

-John Davidson

Thanks for the interest in Wikipedia. I'm glad you understand why this isn't a useful page for Wikipedia.

You can't actually delete a page from Wikipedia yourself. There is however a procedure for doing it, which involves the deletion notice I added to the page. There is no real point in removing the notice. Instead what I suggest is going to the place where the deletion is being discussed (you can get to it from Kinterval) and explain what happened there. That will ensure that the page is deleted as quickly as possible. DJ Clayworth 20:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to your questions about MRAA

Anyone understand what's going on there?

It is just an award, given to the most reverted administrator.

Why is this a user page rather than a Wikipedia page?

MRAA is not an official wikipedia award. It is private sector, not public.

What exactly are we measuring here?

We are trying to measure how many times the userpage of every admin has been vandalized and reverted.

Is this user trying to claim some sort of official status, and if so is it justified?

I am not claiming any official status. It is an award, given by an anonymous wikipedian, to the most reverted admin. Thats all, it is nothing more and nothing less.

Most reverted admin award 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

You can use simply {{George Weston Limited}} instead of leaving {{Template:George Weston Limited}}. I hope this clarifies things. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't add that template to President's Choice Financial. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help with some RAF history

I'm currently working on List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II there currently is a under developed RAF subsection I would appreciate some help if you have any history/research materials showing other RAF units which deployed the Martin B-26 Marauder, and any history/background you can dig up on the units already mentioned. Thanks! ALKIVAR™ 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

An article that you expressed some interest in, Resurgence of antonarian monotheistic concepts has been nominated for deletion by me. Please consider contributing to the discussion. Jkelly 04:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hi David. Thanks for your note. Indeed when I first split up January 2005 into day pages so that I could introduce the "This day in recent years" on January 1-style pages a month or two ago, someone did indeed the list the page on AfD. I explained there the advantages of the more atomized content and a majority of respondents agreed that I should continue the project. Note Wikipedians are all happy with the content, this is a mere re-arrangement of it and, thanks to the transclusion system, people who prefer to see whole months at a time can continue to do so as they have always done. Hope that helps, Pcb21 Pete 15:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks again!

Thanks again, DJ Clayworth, for your very kind words on the montage pics for WWI & WWII! It's always nice to feel appreciated, especially when it comes from the person who initially brought up the issue. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 10:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like your opinion

Hi again, DJ Clayworth! I would really like your opinion on a matter (not because I've talked to you, but because I know your concern over article scope & organization). If you feel you have time and interest, please see Talk:List of military engagements of World War II (section "Article Size" and "Contents of this article") where I have had a discussion with another wikipedian concerning that article's scope vs. organization. I'd really appreciate your sincere opinion on the matter. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help

Hello DJ. My apologies for overwriting your edits. This was the panicked response of a newbie, not an intended slight. The Wiki page said, "You must merge your edits below with the text above." I really had no idea how to do that, so I pasted the whole thing in again. I have since read the style guide, and I have tried to conform to the stylistic tone you set in the first section of my article.

I'll also be a bit wiser and thus more careful in the future!

--Robert Tarzwell 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep up the good work. DJ Clayworth 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'flesh tunnel' deletion

While I don't doubt that the edits from 217.23.230.4 in flesh tunnel were rubbish (looks like he's a vandal, all right), there may have been some useful data in the article before he got to it, judging from the edit log, at least. Can you check to see if the pre-vandal article was worth restoring? --moof 06:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. I have restored the article and reverted to a non-vandalised version. DJ Clayworth 01:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! --moof 04:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USA Religion deletion

Inexplicably you informed me that i was vandalising the USA page specifically the amount of christians in the USA when all i did was use the figure used on the wikipedia page about religion in the USA rather than some nebulous polls that the original user references . As such i intend to replace the figures used from the wikipedia page itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

Absolutely the best approach. Since this is obviously an issue. I'll cite the reference for there being no census information on religious affiliation in the US. [6] DJ Clayworth 23:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re user warning

Hi,

re your last warning to User:152.163.100.70. I've found in the past that AOL users who vandalise don't stop because of warnings. Instead those pages just become a litany of final warnings. Because they don't stop and are only on to vandalise, the best solution on any page where there is that AOL template at the top is when you find clear vandalism taking place to impose an immediate 15 minute block. The asshole usually doesn't come back. (I've had at least 20 cases recently where a warning simply led them to increase the amount of vandalism. Those damn AOL pages are a pain in the butt.)

There is a set of templates for AOL vandalism.

{{AOL4}} is a warning to stop immediately.
{{AOL5}} is a notice that the account has been blocked.
{{AOL6}} is both templates together, with 5 nested in 4.

While a lot of vandals can be discouraged by warnings, the AOL vandals seem to pay no heed whatsoever ever. The best solution tends to be an immediate 15 minute block. That way the kiddies can go off and play somewhere else and stop screwing WP over. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Haven't deal with a lot of AOL users before. Though in this case the vandalism actually stopped after the warning. DJ Clayworth 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your very speedy delete

I see you deleted the article State of denial, most likely because it was a substub at the time. If you look back you'll see that the anonymous user who originally made the page has since recreated it and filled it out into a very good stub. You should keep in mind that very new users often don't use the preview button, and tend to save their changes when they want to see their work. Deleting it less than a minute after it was created doesn't take this into account. :) // Pathoschild 18:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry there. Slight attack of over-enthusiasm. I'll try not to do it again. DJ Clayworth 18:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my signature link (sorting incoming links). // Pathoschild (_admin / ^') 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ess. on Wheels!

I saw it on the new usr parse list and started to edit the page. By the time the edit had committed he'd been blocked. 68.39.174.238 22:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Just checking. DJ Clayworth 22:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Desorption Article ~ Copyright help

If my claiming ownership of this article [7] is not going to be enough to alleviate your suspicion of copyright violation, what text could I add to the page [8] that would convince you to let the article stand on Wikipedia? Please help, I would like to resolve this. --Michael Joe 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Thermal desorption. DJ Clayworth 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your help and guidance in resolving this issue.

I have released the the article contained on our website to Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License. You, or anyone at Wikipedia can contact us by phone or email to verify my authority to release information. Thanks again for your help. --Michael Joe 17:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. I will remove the copyright notice. DJ Clayworth 19:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation

The current standard is not to bother responding to nonsense posts at all, just simply delete them. TTFK -- user:zanimum

With pleasure. However I wonder if leaving them for a day or two might discourage them from being repeated. DJ Clayworth 16:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answers in Genesis

Hi DJ. As one of the largest, if not the largest contributors to the AiG page....

OK, we all need to have a good think about this page. Do you want to help debate your comments on the tallk page? Also, do you feel fairly impartial regarding this organization- for instance do you have any particular connection with them? I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say- at the moment it's complete chaos. You're right that this is in danger of turning into an edit war. A large part of the problem for me seems to be the state of the talk page (see my comments). We need to return to a reasoned debate- which I'm interested in doing. Thanks. Christianjb 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that we need a reasoned debate. But more importantly we need to get the article back to being an article about the organisation, not an argument about whether the organisation is right or not. I have no particular connection with them, though I have read much of their material and encountered some of their supporters. I'll see what I can do. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your comments in some detail on the AiG talk page. As to the above comment. The article doesn't take a position on whether AiG is right or wrong. It does highlight some very controversial statements made by AiG (on homosexuality for instance, and on the Tsunami). It's important to show the factual information that AiG makes several links in a page criticizing homosexuality to a piece of biblical scripture calling for the death penalty for homosexuals. Of course that can be taken as "insinuating", but it's really just demonstrating the reasons why AiG has become such a controversial organization. It would be a disservice to the readers to euphamize this- when I look up a Wiki page on a political party for instance, I want to know more than just the bare bone facts- I want to know who supports them, who disagrees with them and whether they have made any particularly controversial statements. Again, the article explicitly does not say that these statements are "wrong".

Nevertheless, I am interested in what someone coming to this debate has to say- and that includes whether you're a creationist (who incidentally has views diametrically opposite to mine) or you're a skeptic (who agrees with most of my personal views). One thing that I personally feel needs urgent attention are the personal attacks made upon me on the talk page. Others have claimed that's hypocritical, since I have strongly denounced AiG- stated as my personal opinion- on the talk page. However, there's a big difference between my personal views about an organization, and actually personally attacking another editor (which I have refrained from doing).

BTW- in case anyone thinks I'm going behind anyone's back- you are free to copy this text onto the talk page or make reference to it. This is not a private message. Christianjb 10:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sorry to harp on! but it occurs to me after rereading the entire AiG page- that in its current form- it really isn't too bad! I'm sure there's room for much improvement, but please don't throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. I think the page does a fair job at recognizing the controversial nature of many of AiG's teachings. Both points of view are expressed in almost all instances. Again, the biggest problem is the hostility and editing tactics being employed at the moment. Things have to calm down fast! People need to take a chill pill. I'm afraid that includes me, as I have let myself get too involved as of late. Really, what I'd like you to do- not that you have to listen to me, or I have to listen to you, is to get everyone to calm the **** down. Christianjb 10:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually , with a few removals of extraneous material, I now more or less agree. Though I think there is a little more that could go while improving the NPOV. Also the rate of change seems to have slowed, which is a big plus. DJ Clayworth 04:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm going to try to work with you. It's a refreshing change to talk to someone who actually signs in, doesn't insult me and replies to corrrespondence. I will certainly respect your edits. Christianjb 06:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

favor

DJ, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stup of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if you checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say again what I said on Talk:Judaism and Christianity: Wow. That's quite a section. I will read it carefully over a few days and try to expand the Christianity section (though what is there seems to be good). DJ Clayworth 04:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and Christianity

DJ, I truly appreciate your comment — I consider it high praise indeed, coming from you. I have called the page to the attention of a few other editors who have worked on Christianity-related articles and do look forward to that part of the section being developed, but I very much appreciate your comments. As to your question, Hillel (who said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to others) lived before Jesus, and the main rule, "Love thy neighbor as theyself" — it comes straight out of Leviticus. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think all Christian authorities accept that Leviticus was written before any of the Gospels. I believe that Jesus, in Mark 12, is quoting Leviticus ... nothing to feel bad about, it just shows that Jesus really knew the Torah well. That said, I do believe that either Jesus went further than Leviticus 19:18 in his preachings about love, or at least Church fathers and Christian theologians have interpreted him as going farther, and Paul certainly diverged from traditional Jewish teaching (Hillel is a major Rabbinic authority from the first century BCE, and although Will Herberg and Frans Rosenzweig are 20th century theologians, they are both considered very important and working well-within Jewish tradition). So even if Jews and Christians have that one sentence in common (and perhaps other things), I am certain that there remains much more to be said about the meaning of "love" in Christianity. Thanks for your attention, Slrubenstein | Talk 04:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, slight misunderstanding. I totally concur that Jesus was quoting Leviticus and that Leviticus predates the Gospels (by a long way). My thought was really that Jesus elevates the quote from 'one of the things God said' to be "a summary of all the law and the prophets", and I was wondering whether any other Jewish teacher had similarly elevated the Leviticus passage? DJ Clayworth 04:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. My apologies for misunderstanding you. Well, I do think Hillel in effect did the same as Jesus, in elevating this commandment. And his story is something I think any Jewish kid going to Sunday or Hebrew school learns. Beyond that I am not sure. I do know that Leviticus is one of the most commented-upon book by the Rabbis, but most of them post-dated Jesus. But Hillel predated him (or, there was a slight overlap in their lives, Hillel dying shortly after Jesus was born). That said, it seems to me that the Gospels and then Paul's Epistles put Leviticus 19:18 in a different context, and expand on it in a way different from that of the Rabbis. I suggest that it is here that Jesus, Paul, and Christianity's original insights and contributions are found — not in singling out Leviticus 19:18 first, but in framing it, interpreting it, elaborating on it, in new ways (ways I do not fully understand, and rely on you and other editors to teach me, hopefully by adding to the article!!). Slrubenstein | Talk 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Jesus cited the Golden Rule as summary of the "Law and Prophets" in Matt 7:12, his cite of Lev 19:18 is under questioning by the "Pharisees", Matt 22:34-40, in which he quotes the "Great Commandment" Shema, and Lev 19:18 as the second, and that the "Law and Prophets" hang on these two commandments. Jesus was active during the time of Shammai and his teachings tend to lean more in that direction than the earlier Hillel.

DJ, thank you for your recent work on the article. I, for one, found it very educational. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish I could match your breadth of scholarship. I write only what I have picked up as I go along. DJ Clayworth 05:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan Kenobi

See the talk page at Obi-Wan Kenobi. We shall continue the discussion there. The Wookieepedian 19:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo Norse Society

The legal name, on their charity registration and on their web site is: The Anglo-Norse Society in London, with a hyphen. --David Woolley 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity, tolerance, and equality

This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on England

Why? There is a big section England#national anthems explaining that God Save The Queen isn't the anthem of England. Morwen - Talk 19:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I may have reverted an English article instead of a British one. Sorry if that turns out to be the case. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afshar experiment - NPOV tag

I just saw your comment about the NPOV tag on the Afshar experiment article. I completely agree with you that an NPOV tag is the correct solution. Unfortunately, Afshar messes with the article whenever anyone adds any kind of disclaimer. It's a big pain to deal with, and frankly I think we're all sick of fighting with him. So please go ahead and do it if you want. Dave Kielpinski 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment request

Would you mind looking in on Talk:Jesus H. Christ#"Bored church attendees"? Thanks for your time. Tom e r ^talk 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football World Cup move

As a regular contributor to football articles you may wish to vote as talk:Football World Cup Jooler 10:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Born again link

I'd be grateful if you'd have a look at the Talk page for the Born_again topic. It has long carried an external link to the site: Born Again Christian Info Indeed, it was the only external link on the page when you edited it in Feb 2004.

See this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Born_again&diff=2297298&oldid=2285580

I replaced it because it has recently been removed, and a user called KHM03 is repeatedly removing it, falsely claiming it is spam. I'd be grateful for your involvement.

PS. How's the Chipmunk? I flew Tiger Moths at Cambridge, and an Auster at Skeggy! :)

--Abeseed 15:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the link you refer to is a very good one, but it does demonstrate what the regular evangelical/fundamentalist views on born again are. If we can't find a better one I think it should stand. It's not really spam.

Not sure about the Chipmunks = I haven't flown in one since I was an Air Cadet. I did update the article though. I flew Cessnas out of Cambridge a long time ago. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology

As you may know, there is much discussion at Talk:Mythology that parallels the work we did on the Christian Mythology category. I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

Thank you for catching the vandalism to this article. I did, however, revert your second edit, and plan soon to be making additional changes in line with Featured Article parameters. If you have any suggestions, feel free to pass them along. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What I did was to merge two one-sentence paragraphs into a single paragraph (always a good thing) and add a needed section at the start? DJ Clayworth 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have an article up for Featured Article status and it's been mentioned by more than one user that the lead should be 2-3 paragraphs and a concise summary of the person featured. The "needed section" was one sentence and would have been rejected as a "section". Please feel free to discuss; reply on my talk page so I don't get busy with other things and forget (sorry...) ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 18:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for television shows (again)

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Military History Task Force

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force people to joint so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A noble aim. I'm a little busy right now, but I would helpf if I could and may try to chip in occasionally. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help, on Hitler

Sorry I was busy, but you reply to my dismissal of the 'good article' category whilst fair enough comes within an inch , in that archive 16 , of an anon user(Str1977 it appears) who openly claims to keeping me off the internet as an extreme user of extreme source. I can only hope you would have seen the sourced questioning and inclusions I have been involved in and appreciate the reality of that source. And help us all by countering the attack made on rationality by non-acceptance of verifiable source. I think the best place to get the gist is through my evidence at the Arbcom trial. You could help straightway by backing my request to the admin Babajou to restore the deleted german businessmen info which was Rhenish-Westphalian Magnates and the Nazis.Please. EffK 09:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Have you mistaken me for someone else? My only contributions to Adolf Hitler have been to revert obvious vandalism. This is the first I have heard of Rhenish-Westphalian Magnates and the Nazis or its deletion. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Theory

This from Str1977 just before yours to me on Archive 16 at Hitler: I am very sorry to inform you, Lacatosias, that the internet is unfortunately a medium were extermist activism can achieve very much. It will necessarily infect things like the WP if there aren't those around who are actively guarding a certain standard, at best those with knowledge and qualifications in the respective fields. This is what I am doing in this case. Effk is promoting a extreme theory, no doubt sincerely, but it is still extreme. The sources do not supprt the contentious points he makes (and they have nothing to say on what information should be included in what article and about linguistic problems). He's certainly not fighting the good fight, though I don't question his honest belief. I'll tell you more clearly , please study the eidit of 15 Decemberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=next&oldid=31500520,[[9]] conering section Totalitarian Control. compare the removal to the removers statement "This is right insofar the actual Concordat negotiations starting with Papen's arrival in Rome. The Centre party's existence was on the bargaining table. Pius and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce into the party's demise in return for the concordat. The party's demise was not their intention and it is obvious that the party was a dead man at that point.". So please re-include my statement of the history, if you are able to so do. EffK 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo DJ, why did you revert my removal of the attack message ROHA constantly posts on Talk:Adolf Hitler? Str1977 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I generally believe that everything should be left on talk pages, unless they are absolutely vitriolic or threatening. That one seemed kind of mild given the subject matter. Accusations of bias are pretty par for the course, and if we don't allow their accusations to remain in just reinforces the perception of bias. I'm certainly not upset by seeing that one (especially aimed at someone called 'The Wikipedia Administrator') and I think we should allow users to express their views. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: 2nd deletion request for Afshar experiment article!

A non-expert is again requesting deletion of the article. [10] Your vote would be appreciated. Prof. Afshar 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reeves

That one character is very persistent. The page was locked for a week or so, and as soon as it was unlocked, he posted his stuff again. You might have to lock it for "100 years", in his words. Wahkeenah 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we just have to keep reverting. DJ Clayworth 14:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bodyguard and related

Hello, Mr. Clayworth.

I've given up correcting the errors--I'm sorry , but that's what they are, I don't mean to seem like I'm flaming--about Plan Bodyguard, Operations Fortitude North and South, and their relationship. I guess it's you that keeps changing them back.

I think the best I can do is encourage you to read my book, "The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War" (Scribner, New York, and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 2004), especially Chapter 12 ("Bodyguard") and Chapter 13 ("Quicksilver"). I realize that the book may be heavy going at 1100 pages, but about one-third of that is reference notes, bibliography, appendices, etc. It will lead you to the original documentation, which you might find interesting.

WWII deception is a fascinating subject, but there really is a lot of erroneous misinformation about it and my book is a modest effort to set the record straight based on the declassified sources.

With best wishes,

T. Holt

Let's go back to Talk:Operation Fortitude. DJ Clayworth 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeebow Unit

This article was deleted as a result of a vote for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gazeebow Unit. If you wish to restore it please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. From that page: "Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion...". --maclean25 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an entry at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The speedy tag on the last version of the article made me assume that it had been speedy deleted. I don't think the AFD voters were in posession of the necessary facts. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review has no policy calling for the undeletion of articles under deletion review. That is merely Tony Sidaway's unilateral decision, which he has no consensus to do. I am following consensus of the DRV process, which does not say that reviewed articles should be undeleted. If you would like to see the content, I could mail it to you. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the content, thanks. Since the article was already undeleted at the start of the review (and not by Tony) then I think it would make sense to leave it there until the end of the deletion review. DJ Clayworth 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Military history

Howdy DJ Clayworth. I've noticed that you've been doing alot of work on military history articles (primarily WWII). Are you aware of WikiProject_Military_history? Your insights would definitely be welcome. Oberiko 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Goebbels

Why did you revert the Roman Catholic categorization of Goebbels?? The Third Reich was the most Catholic government in Germany's history, and no one should forget that. 24.136.99.194 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your talk page, if you can cite references then it can stand. You will also have to explain away the references that say the opposite, including the ones detailing the anti-Catholic attitudes of the Third Reich. While I have found references to back up the statement that Goebbels was born into a Catholic family, I can find none to indicate that he practiced later in life. DJ Clayworth 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Era started on December 25

Shifted to Talk:Year zero. -- Paul Martin 09:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Normandy Landings

2nd of Feburary 2006

Hello David,

The message about the quote "Les carrotes sont cuites, les dés sont jetés" ("The carrots are cooked, the dice have been thrown") which was broadcast by the BBC on the 5th of June 1944 at 2100 hours. It was found in a "Hors-Série" of the 8-12 year-old magazine "Images Doc", the Hors-Série was printed in March 2004 by Bayard Jeunesse Presse in France; it falls under ISSN 0995-1121 (so you can verify). If you cannot get your hands on this, please tell me, and I will scan the specific page and I will send it

Thank-You

Booksworm

Dear David,

I acknowledge that my article error of Mullberry was signifucant and I will try my best to verify my data from now on, but for instance, I do not always make mistakes. Eg. If you verify on the major train events in the trains portal, under December 11 2005, of which my data there was correct.

Thanks for the information. I wasn't meaning to imply that you always make mistakes, but I was encouraging you to fact-check things very carefully. I would also encourage you to check and article carefully before adding information to it, in case contradictory information is already in the article. What I think would be appropriate here is to copy out the paragraph or so of the book that relates to this message. The problem here is that a different message indicating the imminent invasion is already recorded in the article. It may be of course that what is currently written there is wrong. it may also be (and this seems likely to me) that the BBC broadcast many messages that night, in which case we can't report them all. May I also say this this seems, without evidence, to be an unlikely message, because "les dés sont jetés" is such a well-known phrase associated with being committed to a risky endavour. It would be like using "we're going to invade' as a codeword for an imminent invasion. DJ Clayworth 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have just re-read the article entirely, the BBC sent these two messages seperatley but, within the same hour, I am currently contacting Bayard Presse to ask them about this. --Booksworm 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have hust verified with my history teacher about the phrase sent by the BBc and he says that the BBC would have sent the message, within another programme (eg. "Les carottes sont cuites" may have been broadcast in a cooking programme. And "Les dés sont jetés" may have been broadcast on a radio-documentery about Casinos or whatnot. I will have this clarified by the end of this month, in which I hope that Bayard Presse will respond. --Booksworm 09:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we take this to Talk:Battle of Normandy so that other people get a chance to make a contributions? I've copied these messages there. DJ Clayworth 16:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violations

I did that, about a fortnight ago for another article, and I also wrote it on the CopyVio discussion page. In both cases, they remain the latest additions to the page. Helzagood 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this isn't working for you. But you will get messages like this if you don't leave a message on the talk page. The best thing is to leave a message and wait for a while. It may take a week or so, but eventually the notice will be removed. DJ Clayworth 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person that left the original copyvio notice has backed out, saying that he assuming good faith and is allowing me to continue with the article, can you please do the same? Helzagood 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My issue was only with the removal of the notice. DJ Clayworth 22:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What text are you referring to that was simply copied from website? Can you print copied text and my contribution to wikipedia in my talk page so I can see them together? thanks and I do appreciate your lesson. Ccson 17:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Alpha Phi Alpha Mourns Death of Coretta Scott King. The URL it is copied from is given in the article. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand know that press releases (or at least this release) are not noteworthy, however; if you quote someone, article, etc, and provide the reference, how does this violate rules. For example, the resolution from Congress about Mrs. King is here as a single article and I can only assume it's printed in its entirety without change. Just want to understand the policy so I can comply in the future. Also, the resolution provides no reference to its source. Ccson 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. DJ Clayworth 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you find the Coretta Scott King/Senate Resolution 362 article that was the impetus for me adding the page that I should not have added. thanks again for the info. Ccson 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes

Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice, but I'm fully occupied elsewhere right now. DJ Clayworth 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 195.195.244.153

has committed at least two, probably three violations since you last blocked him/her on 2 February. ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo. This guy is keeping the man down!!! He is censoring what George Washington is doing!!! Ban this user. Flag him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (unsigned comment by User:Julienisnard)

Alex Harris

Hi, the reason I posted the article as possible copyvio was solely because the text in the article contains a copyright notice, referencing that web site. I could not find the same text on that web site either, but the presence of the copyright notice seemed to be reason enough to post it as a possible copyvio. Not sure how else to handle it. Thanks for looking into it. Accurizer 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. That's a valid reason, and I would agree with it. I think we might get away with just removing the copyright notice in the article, given that the article author asserts he is the copyright holder for the website. I've copied this to the talk page also. DJ Clayworth 16:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Thanks for your help. Accurizer 16:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you agree that Alex Harris should be supplanted by Alex Harris/Temp? Thanks. Accurizer 16:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22nd century

Hey. Since you showed a rather outspoken opinion on Major Anniversaries of the 22nd century, I come to you for help. I've reverted lots of edits adding Mozart and other non-significant anniversaries, but it's turning into an edit war, and I don't think it would be very wise to continue. Could you help us out? If you insist on getting rid of the whole section, I agree and will support. Thanks. --Leo44 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

Is that so? Courier new 04:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Roundabout

Thanks for reverting, Best wishes, Lion King 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stapes (aka Scott Messorano, DJ Mod Scott, Scott Stapes) as writer/singer/songwriter/musician/actor from Staten Island, New York.

Hi. I noticed that you tagged the above article with a {{prod}} tag. There were no comments with the tag. I did see you added them to the talk page. I have moved the article to AfD. I would invite you to comment there. James084 20:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheggie Party

Why was my article listed for deletion when it was factually correct in every aspect and did not attempt to put across political beliefs, it only pointed out that such a party exists. How does wikipedia expect to cover everything if people choose to delete things they haven't heard of? My article was first listed for deletion before i had even had a chance to finish it, so i had to start another one and then because of wikipedia rules that was automatically deleted because it was under the same name. HELP ME!!! Bobdabildur 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry about us being the same person. KHM03 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I was wondering if I was you or you were me. :-) DJ Clayworth 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anabaptist issues

I noticed you edited/deleted a few of my additions to various Anabaptist articles. Please notice on the Excommunication discussion page that there is a big dispute going on here between me and I assume Mennonites who see things from other POV's. Please comment on all edits and please discuss reverts/deletes you do beforehand so we can achieve NPOV and prevent edit wars here. I did edit the excommunication section in response to your undiscussed edits. Nothing is set in stone to me but please discuss major changes beforehand as I expect balanced church and non-church POV to be included here. We seem to be getting closer to a balanced NPOV study here. However, please be careful not to soften, whitewash or conceal Mennonite realities so I can cooperate with you. Also please comment or suggest ways that I can assist you to attain NPOV balance on Anabaptist articles too. Anacapa 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove links to Mind control from the Mennonite and Anabaptist articles. I could see no reason why they should be there. Feel free to explain on those talk pages. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from a first time visitor to the Talk Mennonite pages...

Wow! That is all I can say. Usually I just look at the Amish pages and PA Dutch pages, but I checked out the Mennonite Talk Page and the Excommunication page... Yikes! I grew up in the Mennonite-Amish world and am away from it recently, and I think I am pretty neutral towards them, the positives and the negatives. I can honestly say, however, that the excommunication is not near as strict in general as it is portrayed by some on these pages, and the majority of Mennonites don't shun at all, of course it depends on individual families etc and what group one belongs to. Even most of the Old Order Amish I know of who left are not strictly shunned. Most Amish shun for a year or so only, and a lot of Amish find ways around shunning with technicalities, to bend the shunning rules, like eating at separate tables but placing the two tables side by side. I guess this message is aimed at Anacapa more so, it's not at all at aimed at you - you seem neutral, but it's my five cents worth. I think one can be biased by being overly critical and by making over generalisations as much as by being an overt adherent and not critical enough. Stettlerj 04:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an extemely well documented section at Excommunicated which somehow has been changed quite a bit and tagged POV. Stettlerj 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Air Force

I responded to your message on the AfD page as follows: If the debate is re-framed and re-defined it's always easy to question what's been said in the past but your lobbying to keep the band appears to be sincere. I will take the position that the band may or may not be (barely) notable -- although the Let's Boogie For Jesus! article shows that a band member (Donnie Gossett) wrote most of the songs, produced the album, and the album's label was donniegossett.com (for authors in print media this looks and feels like vanity press) -- that notwithstanding, its members and its albums are not. Not every album issued by even an undisputedly notable group is worthy of an article: some major artists have no discography (e.g., Glen Campbell) or where they do, see the discography section of many important artists and you'll see an absence of links (e.g., Johnny_Cash_discography) or red ones. Now, perhaps some people think that Salvation is bigger than Campbell or Cash, but IMHO they're not. Moreover, members of notable groups are not inherently notable. For example, see, e.g., the article A*Teens; each member's name is a redirect to the group which says all that need be said about the members which in some cases (like birthdates and places) is more extensive than those of Salvation's member's long-winded articles. The A*Teens, regardless of what you may think of them, have sold 8 million albums -- the Salvation article provides no sales numbers, so no assertion of notability on that score. So, in short, the band may or may not be a vanity-press produced group either barely notable or just not notable. The band members and its albums are clearly not notable.

Carlossuarez46 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disagree with what you say about the articles on the records, and probably not on the members either. But for a band with a thirty year record, who signed with a major record label and recorded several albums with a very big name in Christian music I would think they deserve a mention. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Salvation Air Force

For notability concerns when it comes to bands like these, I consult Amazon, Allmusic and Google. Nothing at the first two and 478 results from Google.[11] Not notable. But then, if you'll note the very first Google result. It's the Wikipedia article. That a Wikipedia article is the most popular page on any search term is a troubling thought to me. I don't feel that Wikipedia should be the definitive source on anything. And then, I looked at the page history. The article and all of its subsidiary articles were predominately written by one contributor who has made no other contributions. That is not a criterion for deletion, but it makes the article itself seem highly dubious to me. It's all my opinion. -- Krash (Talk) 00:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krash. I don't want to make too much of this, but Amazon, Allmusic and indeed Google are only useful for bands that were active during the years of the Internet. I can understand doubts about their size - they are not worldshking size, but if we are concerned that they might be a vanity band this is clearly not the case. Their record label, Myrrh, is a division of Word Records - certainly a major label and probably the biggest in the Christian music scene (Myrrh published the first albums by Amy Grant). Larry Norman, who produced them is one of the biggest names in the Christian music scene. I understand your doubts, and I will be the first to admit that SAF are not a major, worldwide band. But they are not vanity either, simply a niche band in the days before the niche was big business. DJ Clayworth 22:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of LFL redirect

Only wantet to let you know, that I proposed the redirect 'Los Angeles Temptation' (which you 'created') for speedy deletion, cause the name of the article where it is redirecting to ('Los Angeles Dream') is not correct. Then I will be able to move 'Los Angeles Dream' to the name of the former redirect ('Los Angeles Temptation') and finally make another redirect ('Team Dream') to 'Los Angeles Temptation'.

Weapon X (de) 19:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. DJ Clayworth 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relational aggression versus respectable discussions

DJ, by accident I happened across your comments to Stettlerj on her discussion page. I want you to know that I detest snakes. If you have an issue with me or my POV take it up with me or write it up on the associated discussion pages. What you did is a covert attempt to assassinate my character and my POV falsely and behind my back. This is known as relational aggression and it is ugly. You profess to want to work with me in a peaceful way. This is far from peaceful. Are you being honest with me at all?

To discuss with you again I need the following:

1. You identify and retract all such convert comments you have made to others at my expense behind my back.
2. You own your POV in open discussion pages rather than falsely slandering me with what you falsely believe to be my POV.
3. You refrain from participating in gang bang attempts with others who might also share these bad habits. I did call open aggression on the discussion pages but who knows what other ugliness might be going on behind my back even now. If there is any POV, I have it is that Mennonites who do relational aggression are not being nice at all.
4. If you want to fight with me go ahead but fight fair with sources, with reason and out in the open so I/we all can respect you a little or a lot.

I willing to work with any and all reasonable people. I am beginning to suspect you might be a spoiler with no genuine constructive content to add here. If that is the case I will ignore you and discuss things with those who are constructive.

However, if it is honest POV where we differ I will be glad to listen your concerns and work with you. We must get beyond go nowhere opinions however and use judgement and data to make decisions. I welcome genuine and authentic differences of opinions so refrain from slandering me by reading my mind or assuming you know my POV's here and from asserting your POV with no sources or data. As you can see from what I added in Population there is a lot of lack of knowledge about Mennonites even among Mennonites. Please be constructive and shatter these false impressions with balanced facts and sourced data rather than mere opinions.Anacapa 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Anacapa. I'm sorry you were offended by something I wrote on another user's talk page. However before you start resusing to cooperate I suggest you go and reread what I wrote. I did not accuse you of anything, and I did not claim to know what was in your mind. I did suggest a possibility of the thinking that might be governing your approach, namely "It sometime happens that an editor arrives at a page with a very fixed idea about something, usually based on a strong (but sometimes very limited) experience they have had". In fairness I based this idea on what you had already written, namely writing things in Mennonite that looked as if they applied to all Mennonites, but which in fact were only true of a small minority. I didn't suggest any approach to Stettlerj other than suggesting that something she said to me be repeated on the Mennonite talk page - i.e. reducing the level of behing-the-scenes discussion.

I have no intention of fighting with you at all. My intention here is to produce the best and most balenced articles that we can. If you are willing to work towards that too then I will continue to cooperate fully. DJ Clayworth 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Anacapa 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ I am glad you have no intention of fighting with me. However, the statement you made above about me is false and is your POV about me sight unseen. To make false statements about me behind my back is a covert form of fighting that I need to see stop. Will you commit to making all statements about me TO ME on my talk page or on the open discussion pages from here on so I can discuss them out in the open. As soon as I see this commitment, I will be glad to go back to working with you in good faith again.

You have no idea who I am and what my intent is here nor do I you. I do assume things about you too sometimes but that is my personal and private POV and open to change. Anacapa 04:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image talk:ControlSurfaces.gif

Answer is ready. -PioM09:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there.

I got a message from you about reverting things three times in a day. Yes, I did that. Sorry, but the reason is that I put 3 links up on the wikipedia.com "protest warrior" page and each time I did it, a protest warrior named "rogue 9" deletes them. They are not spam, nor are they vandalization of the page. They are simply links to stories that are critical of the protest warriors and because they want to paint a fake picture of themselves, they keep deleting everything I put on their page.

Check it yourself and please advise.

Protest Warrior No longer an accurate article

OK, I got your message and the messages of a few others regarding this. I'm all set. I won't edit the page anymore at all. I'm really all set with wikipedia altogether at this point. The articles I linked to are not from a commercial site. I am not trying to sell anything with those articles. I actually infiltrated their organization (as they claim to do to "leftist" protests) and I got their own words and a VERY clear depiction of how they REALLY act. I took the time to write those articles. I posted critical links and they got removed numerous times.

Currently, the protest warrior article on wiki makes them look like angels. There are no critical links. I thought wikipedia was for "anyone to edit", but apparently not.

The protest warrior article looks like nothing but a giant SPAM advertisement for them and their site. The depiction painted on wikipedia is absolutely NOT accurate. I thought you were looking for the most accurate articles you could get. I guess not.

I suppose I could dance around your rules and create a wiki about rRockNRev and add all sorts of links to my PW articles, but wouldn't I just be creating a true SPAM article at that point? And isn't that what protest warrior has done with their article?

You know as well as I do that it's a completely silly rule to tell me that someone else can post a link to my article but I can't. Please note that before I joined wiki, I posted those articles anonymously and they still got deleted numerous times.

So anyway, that's fine. Wiki is not what I thought it was. It's a good idea, and it might work for some topics, like the 10th president of the US or something where the party being discussed isn't able to edit and remove anything derogatory about themselves, but as we have learned here, it isn't always accurate regarding current entities and events.

Thanks for taking time to explain a few things to me. I appreciate it.

Have fun with your site.

Sincerely, Rev

Well, Rev, thanks for your opinions. I hope you understand that things said in Wikipedia have to be not only accurate but verifiable. The fact that you went and found something out and wrote it to your blog is fine, but we need a second source to back up what you say. For all we know you may have made everything up. Not that I'm suggesting you have, but it has happened. Which is why we have to have separate verification. I think you would have even more difficulties getting what you wrote about Protest Warriors published in the regular newsmedia, and we're not going toa ccept a lower standard then that. Anyway, sorry you've decided to go. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work! I've seen a lot of copyvios documented by you in the past half hour in Special:Recentchanges. :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. They were all submitted by one guy, so really easy to track down. DJ Clayworth 20:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment?

DJ, please read my comments in the sections above. Before I can begin again to discuss issues with you on the discussion pages I need your commitment to keep things clean with me and discuss any personal issues about me with me as stated above. Please give me that commitment so we get back to work here or please let me know that you cannot commit to being up front with me so I can decide how to handle discussions that include you. Anacapa 06:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments and answered them above. I will continue to keep things clean, as I have done in the past. Anything you need to know I will discuss with you in the appropriate place. I assume also you will refrain from using terms like 'snake' which you seemed to be trying to apply to me above. DJ Clayworth 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this as a start and see where we go from here. However, you certainly were not clean in the past with me so I still wonder about the future. I do see much improvement though so I will do all I can to continue in good faith with you. As for 'snake', I made a general statement about 'snakes' so that you would know that I know how to spot human 'snakes'... that's all I meant. Only YOU know if it applies to YOU because I have no idea what your intentions were but if it is false for you please toss it away. I will also be careful should there every be a next time (I hope not!) to talk tactics instead of labels so you know there is nothing personal here. I also want you to know that the reason I am so sensitive to this is that an earlier editor on Mennnonite who is now 'deceased' did some really ugly things to me with attempted character assassinations etc, etc which closely match what I know of Mennonite shunning. That said, I may have been a bit too hard on you so soon. In any case I mean you no ill will...I just wanted to call this before it became too bad to call. Let's go forward...as I just found this today, I have been holding off on direct responses but now I will go back and respond to you directly on the discussions. Thanks for hanging in there and for your latest suggestions.Anacapa 22:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hello mate. I just wanned to ask you if you have info on "food labeling features". Would be pleasure to hear from you.. dizzycostic@yahoo.com

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

FALSE ACCUSATIONS

i am not "VANDALIZING" this gay site, I am making it better

I presume articles like "F*** you Wikipedia" is the sort of thing you are thinking about here. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Fasten 13:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beant SIngh.

sir there are three beant singh in history. please explain to me how my work was not of NPOV, and explain to me why should we not consider him assassin ? let me tell you one thing your changes have deeply de -motivated me and im really thinking why the hell should i contribute here any more. Anmol.2k4 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalisim is the word i will use for what you did, please help find work i did on beant sing article. Anmol.2k4 09:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you cannot help me then i will report your actions and my actions too to whoever is responsible to stop/vandalism in wikipedia. Anmol.2k4 09:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Clayworth in my changes i had included so much about the history, and Indira Gandhi in order to explain why we should consider beant sing as an assassin, Indira Gandhi is a very well known person in history and her assassinating SHOULD be considered assassination no matter what, i had included reason why they killed her to keep pro Khalistan people like Zafarnamah happy. I'm very happy with your work but I'm not sure if pro Khalistan people are going to think about it same way. I'm sorry i misjudged u(i got confused looking at history, i still don't know what u did), i hope you are going to think about what happed same way.

regards Anmol.2k4 10:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Anmol.2k4. DJ Clayworth 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining me all that,got your point , you see im n00b at editing wikipedia, and it takes me lot of time to understand things like that.(you actually taught me a very new thing about wikipedia, thanks for that too).Anmol.2k4 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I look forward to seeing your edits on lots of articles. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Alpha

I have requested a Peer Review on the article Alpha Phi Alpha because I intend to request that it become a Featured Article. I would like to ask you to review the article and suggest any changes or additions that should be added to bring it to the standard of a featured article. You provided feedback on my talk page for another article and I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. Ccson 15:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006

Project news

An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page.
The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain.
Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created.
An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway.
The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.

From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Deleted Article

Hello! I recently attempted to post an article Titled Steel Gondola Retail Shelving on Wikipedia, however it was deleted. You informed me that this was because the article had been copied from a web page. The web page it was copied from belongs to my company, TRIO Display, and I am the original author. Was my article deleted because the article wasn't Wikipedia-specific, or was it because you were attempting to prevent plaigarism? If the former is true, can I repost articles that I originally write on Wikipedia on other webpages? Sorry, I'm still new to this whole wiki thing, and any clarification would be much appreciated.

Thanks! Adam Jones (Jonesy1134)

For future reference...

... I'm a guy. (back in January, you referred to me as "she" in a post on a talk page.) DS 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll try not to do it again. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest perma-block of User:Jason Gastriggs

Hi DJ Clayworth. I saw that you blocked this account for one week, but it should most likely be blocked indefinitely, as either an impostor or disruptive sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich. It looks more like an impostor to me trying to further discredit the person, and either way I'm considering posting this to WP:RFCU to determine if there are any additional accounts we need to be wary of as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to it. DJ Clayworth 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit my pages

Unless you have something productive to add to a Wikipedia article you did NOT start, please do not {{prod}} my pages. I try to word my articles to be as factual and unbiased as possible, and as an employee at the headquarters of this company, I am qualified to clarify this frequently occurring misunderstanding. Thanks.

--CelticWonder 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to at User talk:CelticWonder. DJ Clayworth 19:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German breakfast

Well as I said I don't know much about it. I just know its widely offered in resorts with heavy numbers of German and British tourists under the name full German breakfast (English translation of it anyway). --Josquius 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Hi, I saw you just PRODed an article, PROD should not be used at the moment see WP:PROD. Orangutan 15:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Merge with Riodinidae

Hello Mr Clayworth,

Thank you for interacting with our nascent effort to develop a wikibase on Indian butterflies. Though not having offical project status, the members, Users: Shyamal, VirenVaz and AshLin (self) are deveoping material on Indian butterflies. Since the three of us are handling a canvas of over a thousand butterflies, you can imagine we are having our challenges. We depend on well wishers like you to comment and protect our intellectual gift to the Commons of mankind.

We are tackling one family in detail first, the Papilionids, to set a standard and showcase the value of open collaborative knowledge in the field of Indian natural history. There is a lot of ignorance. As a people, we donot seem to have open sharing of information as a part of our ethos. So we shall make good with Paps while adding stuff we come across in other families. So you'll find our wikispace filled with stubs and incomplete articles. Slowly but surely we are getting there. Please see Spot Swordtail as a representative output for phase 1. Phase 1 is making enough material to help and motivate a newbie in the world of butterflies.

While doing an odd review today, I found that our Indian butterfly lists were grossly off. I could'nt find one of my favourites - Plum Judy (Abisara echerius). I did a search on LepIndex and found to my horror that the world had recognised two fanmilies since the vintage of our reference books - Riodinidae and Libytheidae. Since our control panels are the family List wikis, I hurriedly patched up a Riodinidae list page, making a mistake in the process, and learnt the process for requesting deletion for the first time :).

Now, I find a stub for you requesting merger of our list page with the parent Family page. Going there, I was shocked to see it virtually empty. My meagre info for newbies on the list page (a ten minute hack) was far more than the Main Page.

My comments are as follows :-

I shall copy my basic stuff to Riodinidae home page, while retaining the instructional minimum on the List page.
Since the Rio main page is crying for attention, I shall include this one page for development to a satisfactory level. (Please understand our list only will have a gateway to the twenty Indian species. The Riodinidae have over a thousand and the majority appear to be new world. Consequently our information and expertise is limited to the Punches and Judies which comprise these twenty species.)

I must say I expected neglect of the Indian butterfly wikispace, but not at the overall or global level. Is it possible that all this time, such an important wiki was waiting for me to contribute to? Little old me, who started wiking from 15 Mar 06 onwards!

Please post me back if you have any view on my proposed solution. I request that you may please trawl through our pages and run your practised eye over our stuff. We would appreciate that if any major changes in material, approach or breach of wiki guidelines are noticed, we may be apprised rather than unilateral action be taken. We are ok with the normal editing and addition of factual information.

We are trying to have the highest stds of published information, references, attribution etc while trying to reach our goal - on online guide for Indian butterflies.

My apologies for this super-long post. Please feel free to delete it subsequently. Regards, AshLin 16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riodinidae improved

I have improved the page as promised. It appears to be almost satisfactory except for some gaps in info. I have marked this page for watching. Rest easy, it is now in my stewardship. Regards,AshLin 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Orexis

Why did you delete this page? Are there some notability guidelines for drugs that I should know about? It seems to me that in a universe of maybe twenty or thirty thousand drugs on the market, most or all of them are notable. Seahen 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

referance desk problem

I think it was yesterday that I posted an answer about Good Friday and Easter and almost immediately your post was underneath it saying I was wrong. I took a little offense to this. I put another post that explains it further. As you could see my proof is in the bible (I don't know if the question asker believes in the bible but that is what it says) and well known recorded history and I also had several other links. Maybe next time you could put a referencee to why I am wrong. Thanks. schyler 10:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schyler. Actually if you read carefully I didn't say you were wrong - I said that what you wrote was a minority opinion, which is absolutely true. The majority of Christians believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead on Sunday. You are allowed your opinion on the matter, but you really shouldn't try to indicate that your belief is the answer when a huge number of people disagree with you. I did say you were wrong that "most people prefer to celebrate on Sunday because that's the day they go to church" because you do indeed have it backwards - Sunday (the first day of the week) is chosen as a Christian holy day because it is generally believed that that was when Jesus rose. DJ Clayworth 23:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visit us please

Hi, There is new look to List of Butterflies of India (Riodinidae). Hope you are happy of your decision to concur with our request to prevent merger with Riodinidae :) Regards, AshLin 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Copyvio

I am following the advice of admin User:Harro5 who blocked the userr for the same copyuvios last night. He checked it all out, I don't need to again as this is a repeat offence. See Talk:History of Guatemala#Merging content. Given it was a repeat offence on a provem copyvio I did the right thing to remove the copyvio content immediately. Wikipedia should never knowingly have copyvio material on board so please dont tell me to not remove known copyvio material immediately, SqueakBox 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK that seems to be fine. It would be helpful in future if you added a reason for CSD markers - "recreation of previously deleted material" would probably be best here. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I will, SqueakBox 19:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian mythology

You asked about the background section of the article. Since the article in general is about the stories of Christianity, it does make sense to have some discussion of where those stories came from. Rather than move or remove it, I would probably just add to it, things like alternative sources for the stories Martin thinks came from Osiris, and the obvious connections with Jewish stories and prophecies , and later hagiographies and other stories. So much to do, so little time. That's my initial take anway, I'm open to other suggestions. Wesley 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Talk:Christian mythology. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Douglas Cockcroft

Hi,

I'm his Grandson, so I think I can provide my own references as I have copies of most of the recent biographies written about him and his work.

I'll check your point about UMIST, but you could argue that as UMIST stands for University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology we are both right, it is really symantics as it is now called the University of Manchester.

I'm looking to increase the detail and add some pictures as time allows.

Regards

John P Cockcroft

Reply at User talk:John P Cockcroft. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for keeping a lid on User:Anacapa

i was taking a wiki-break for about 6 weeks and thought i was never coming back, but i did come back. it is clear that Anacapa is using WP to grind an axe and is using WP for a soapbox and WP needs more people to stand up to her so that her denial of such is not enabled. Rbj 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal4 User talk

Thanks for sorting out my user pages - I'm still quite new to this and ocassionally make mistakes like that! Mammal4 17:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Enjoy. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency at Penwith

There is actually some background discussion concerning the use of United Kingdom vs England on Cornwall geography pages which makes it a little trickier than just reverting to England. This has mostly crystalised at Talk: St Just in Penwith at Talk:Carbis Bay and Talk:Cornwall. I won't go into details here as you can read the posts if you are interested. Esentially there is some argument for specifically using United Kingdom on these pages (and within Cornwall this is fairly consistent, and with Cornwall contributers), or at least England and Uk as I have suggested. The discussion really needs to be grouped together on a designated page by some tech wizard :) as discussion is getting fragmented, and contributers are not always aware of what has already been said. Hope you can help? Mammal4 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albatross

Yes, sorry. It needed to be temporarily deleted because a vandal posted an admin's personal details to the article, and it was necessary to remove this from the article's history. It's fixed now (I hope!) sorry about the confusion. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. I thought this was what was going on but I wanted to make sure. God job on the information removal. DJ Clayworth 22:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! --evrik 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of one divided by zero

Thanks a lot Mr. Clayworth for showing me how to sign using the tildes. I really appreciate it. I am trying to improve the article for the Theory of One Divided by Zero, which was an original realization of the author, not research, if that matters. I was hoping to include a thumbnail image of the number circle at the top of the article which would make it more impressive. Can you instruct me as to how to upload an image to wikipedia for this purpose? Gracias in advance Bossk2 05:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Bossk2[reply]

Reply at User talk:Bossk2. DJ Clayworth 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Happiness, Theory of

Thanks for the sub template. Now that I've prod-ed the thing, how do I put it on the discussion page? :) Dlohcierekim 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Dave,

Heard you were a Wikipedian from a mutual friend. Just started, small contribution to the Kalman Filter article ... nervously awaiting to see if it gets torn to shreds!

It'd be good to hear from you but your email's hidden (probably wise!). I think email this user is enabled for me.

Best wishes, Iain

Concerning User:Bobaboba

Hi there. I recently left a note on the Administrator's noticeboard concerning User:Bobaboba. An explanation for his actions might be implied there. Thanks. Cowman109 ^Talk 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Yes, I was too hasty. I'll go and remove it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fernandolovescock

You might want to block this account for the user name like you did for User:Fernandolovesthecock. DG X 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Done. DJ Clayworth 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Bradley

I've made changes to the page on Bradley. If you have time and the inclination, I would value your comments. I thought that the original was a bit POV and I don't want to err myself. Folks at 137 22:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Copyright stuff

I have no idea if this is the right way to send you a message but here goes. The Article called USS Yorktown (CV-5) is almost all copied from http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/histories/cv05-yorktown/cv05-yorktown.html Rekov 19:02, Saturday May 20 2006 (UTC)

~Rekov

Yes you are right. Full reply at User talk:Rekov. DJ Clayworth 16:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving this issue for me. i will do that in the future. Even tho its not copy right protected, dose wikipedia have any policies against doing something like this?

Putting copyright material in Wikipedia is very bad. See Wikipedia:Copyright. For stuff that is public domain, no problem. We're not ashamed to use stuff that's out there. However feel free to edit it to make it better, or more like an encyclopedia, if you like. DJ Clayworth 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Sams

Thanks for your succinct defense of this entry. I couldnt of put it better myself!Lentisco 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whats your deal?

why dont you stop being such a complete d-bag? Why do you care so much if booncach is on wikipedia? what are you, the wikipedia police or something? get a life (unsigned by User:Absworan).

What we are trying to do here is build an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias do not have made-up words in them. If you don't want to make sensible contributions please go to another site and add nonsense words there. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BKWSU

Hi. Sorry about that. The link was made in the topic before the new topic was made. How did you notice it, some kind of bot?

" Don't make links ... " comes across as a little accusatory. Probably best to soften it an depersonalize it a little to something like " Removed self-referential link ". I cant imagine it is ever done deliberately [ apart from a very few malicious cases ]. I will check for other incidents due to new topics having been made.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POTD

Yes, you are correct: They're all Picture of the Day pages. We like to have them ready far in advance (at least one month ahead) so that when someone clicks on the "Archive" link at the beginning of the month (for example, the "Archive" link on June 1, 2006 will lead to the June archive), there are no blank sections in the archive. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GVDES

Hello you deleted my article on GVDES and said it was not notable. I had used an image which our multimedia person had developed and I did not specify her name because I'm still new at this and did not know that this was necessary. As far as GVDES not being notable I'm not sure why other schools would be more notable than ours since we have thousands of students taking courses with us from all over the world and we are the biggest distance education school in Vancouver and one of the biggest in British Columbia. The article is just a stub right now and I would like to have our principal and multimedia person work on it but I don't want to do that before I know that you won't delete it again. Thank you. (unsigned)

I deleted this article because it was an exact copy of the (copyrighted) GVDES website, which made posting it illegal. The new article is also a copy of parts of the website, and I have had to delete it again. However I have created a stub to which you can add more information (under a better article title - Greater Vancouver Distance Education School). Please read Wikipedia:Copyright before you add anything else to the article.

Please be sure that you make the artice neutral and factual, the sort you would expect to find in an encyclopedia, and not in any way an advert for the school. It is often not a good idea to create articles for organisations that you run. DJ Clayworth 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 23:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo J. Marcano

"It is also considered bad form to write articles about yourself, or about your work. If you are notable enough to deserve an article, someone else will do it for you"...DJ Clayworth

The reviews and articles I sent are about my dad not me...At the same time, he has published works in newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times in addition to the book he published with Indiana University Press...son I'm not pretty sure is that notable anough...However, sorry for the confusion...

Arturo Marcano Torres

Sorry for not understanding that, but frankly the same principle applies. I'm intending to nominate the articles for deletion, as that is the standard way of letting the Wikipedia community decide. DJ Clayworth 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Percy Hobart British 79th Armoured Division

I don't know if you still want to know this but Hobart became a Major General in 1937. He remained in this rank. Look at this link Hobart . Tristan benedict 12:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. Feel free to add or correct articles yourself. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... apart from the propaganda value ...

You just beat me to the draw. While you were updating I was setting out my reasoning about why this phase was vandalism of a kind.~~

Its on the article's discussion board.~~

Godzilla image

Did you see relevance to this image absmiddle? It was huge and was not explained. - CobaltBlueTony 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shrunk it down. I think it's the scientist mentioned in the section I attached it to. DJ Clayworth 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Imperialismus und Weltkriege