User talk:DejahThoris

Hello!

This is a final warning to you to cease vandalizing the Joel Leyden article or you will be reported for vandalism. Nancetlv 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Let me assure you (and alert any onlookers) that DejahThoris' edits did not constitute vandalism; they were a legitimate (if zealous) attempt to make a Wikipedia article more verifiable. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jpgordon. I'm still pretty new to major editing, but I'm trying to follow Wikipedia's injuction to be bold! I'm trying not to be over-zealous, but I felt the article needed to be trimmed way down until someone could find appropriate sources for the information it contained. -DejahThoris 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with something of that scale, the best advice I can give is "discuss first, edit later". Small stuff, sure, be bold; but massive changes require massive consideration, and since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it's just common sense (I'd think) to run your ideas before the other editors before actually making big changes. Make sense? Feel free to continue the conversation here. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to see it changed to something that doesn't use Mr. Leyden's own writings as the major source of its information. It's currently protected, which seems appropriate. What should my next step be? I don't feel that Nancetlv is open to listening to my objections regarding the current page. Would it be appropriate to conduct a survey at this point? -DejahThoris 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalhevet Pass

Hey, good post on the talk page, you raised the same points as others, but in a far better way. Cheers. -- Tompsci 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

im just impatient, but ill hold off, as requested now.Karaveks voice 15:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Backwards man

Hi, I did a minor format change on the talk page, and removed the spacing before your comment. I hope you don't mind. Joyous | Talk 01:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please stop

please stop messing with starseed.

i need the placeholder while i write up the article, and it has nothing to do with the fiction that was being redirected to...Karaveks voice 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: need advice

As far as the SEO stuff is concerned, I'm not sure why Wikipedia should care one way or another. Maybe you could explain? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: don't try to take this on in one fell swoop. You can deal with the articles one by one, or let other editors deal with them. It looks as though Sara Silber and Michele Shohatovitz are going to be deleted by the usual process, without any special intervention on behalf of someone familiar with the story. I agree with the changes you made to Joel Leyden, I think user:Xaosflux was wrong to protect the version he protected (and I left a comment to that effect on his talk page) - but I don't think changing the article is urgent. Sooner or later the page will be unprotected again and one of us, or some other sensible editor, will NPOV or whatever. By that time chances are the rest of the gang will have gotten themselves blocked for some disruption and won't be able to interfere. Or, if they do try to harrass you, now that their pattern has been established and recorded in the RfC filed against Israelbeach it will be easier to get an admin to intervene against them, and there are several admins who are already familiar with the group. I'm not filing my request for arbitration so long as they behave themselves (talk page spam is unsightly but no big deal) but I have the request ready to file at the drop of the hat. Keep an eye out, but let them tie their own nooses. They seem to have a knack for it. --Woggly 09:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have these handy-dandy User:Woggly/Israelbeach#Sockpuppet_tags sockpuppet tags ready. Trying to decide whether adding them to the relevant user pages is unnecessary provocation on my part. I won't do it today, and I probably won't do it unless there's an attempt to use these accounts to sway a vote or circumvent 3RR again. But they might be useful to you, if any of these guys start bashing you again. --Woggly 11:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the thought on you know which article. I don't think it's a candidate for speedy. You're right that I'm not thrilled but neither am I anxious to get rid of it. I can take it or leave it, as long as it's not getting vandalised. For what it's worth, all the info is correct and was copied from some other site, and there's a longer article on the Hebrew wikipedia. --woggly 20:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]