User talk:Jim Douglas/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Jim Douglas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rollo

Thanks for the info and link on Will Rollo. Sadly, it came as absolutely no surprise. Welcome to Wikipedia, Jim. Cheers> Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the vandalism to the Will Rollo page, Jim. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Julian (pornographic actor) edit Wikipedia as Jkelly?

I hadn't noticed. I wonder why they assumed I'd be the husband. I must not be doing a lot of vandal fighting these days, as I'd kind of forgotten that vandals ever take it personally. Speaking of which, thanks for the vandal fighting you're doing. Jkelly 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments going at the bottom

Wouldn't a new comment go at the top, so they could see what's new? Or is it organized by chronological order? Aazn 19:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Marysville-Pilchuck High School

I agree with what you say but actually the entry looked like a pass time of a child. Well - lets see if he can improve his efforts in the future. My intentions were never malafide. Thnaks any way. --Marwatt 01:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niwot High School

I understand what you were saying, just realize I was actually improving the article. When I first saw it, there was a lot of falsified information and needless complaints (with poor grammar). I edited these comments out, and then someone added their reply to my actions. The last few paragraphs were my response as to why I deleted many of their comments. I'll try to improve what I can, but I don't expect them to go untainted. Thanks for checking up on it. Settle

Heinlein

Hey, Jim, nice to talk to a fellow Heinlein fan. A couple of things: Heinlein himself excluded "Let There Be Light" from his final Future History timeline, so I don't think it's appropriate to include it the final chronology. It is listed below in the Original Future History section, so it's not like the story is lost to readers of the page. Even if you think he was wrong to exclude it, I think we have to follow his lead on this one. Also, the story is titled "Let There Be Light" with quotes. The link you posted does not have those quotes and just leads to a page about the phrase in the Bible. You can see how the link in the Original Future History includes the quotes, though no one has written an article for it yet. That'd be great if you'd like to do one. Thanks for the suggestion about the talk page, I'll be sure to post something in there about the template. mosesroth 02:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read the FAQ and I'm convinced. I'm going to add a little explanation as to why it's included. Actually, I'd like to flesh out the article more, but it's been a while since I read The Past Through Tomorrow and I'd like to refamiliarize myself with it before moving forward. If you'd like to do any writing in it, that'd be great. I think it could use a section describing the course of history and one describing the course of the writing of it. mosesroth 05:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CALNDR-L

Because you have shown an interest in calendars and time, if you have not done so, I invite you to join CALNDR-L, where all of the world's calendars, past and present, and time are discussed. Many proposed calendars are also discussed, in which I have no interest. — Joe Kress 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Maybe. I will do what is better. Igor Skoglund

Re: Future events

Thanks for alerting me to those pages. I've removed the future events and have noted why in the edit summaries. Fabricationary 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have some guidelines about what kind of entries we can yank from those pages? The problem cases are no-name actors or singers or (gak) wrestlers. I'm tempted to pull more of the cruft, but it's hard to argue the point when the no-name in question has a Wikipedia entry. -- Jim Douglas 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For events, there is Wikipedia:Notability on a global scale over time. For people, anyone without a Wikipedia article devoted to himself or herself personally gets removed on-sight. For people with Wikiarticles that you feel aren't notable, the ideal way to go is an AfD/prod. It'd be quite complicated to devise a list of criteria for what people with articles are and aren't allowed to appear on the pages. Regards, Fabricationary 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Kenny Kim, I'd list it at WP:AFD as a non-notable bio. A kid actor whose biggest claim to fame was having a few lines in Blue's Clues doesn't seem notable. He doesn't have an IMDB entry - at least I don't believe this is him. A Google search with the name in quotes didn't yield any relevant entries (at a cursory glance). Tam in Miss Saigon, is, to the best of my understanding, a non-speaking part/minor character (though his presence plays a big role in the conclusion). Fabricationary 04:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, you're welcome, Jim. Thanks for standing up against the vandal in the first place.

Nitpicking: Useless nitpicking follows.

Actually, I reverted 69.80.225.11 [1], not 67.159.5.76 ;-) MrFi s h^{Go Fish} 19:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sechnaill

Hi Jim. Did'nt think that lack on entry (as yet) would entail deletion, but I do hope to write something brief on him soon. The source you cite is not very accurate, however. Thanks for dropping by, Fergananim 21:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was really just preparing the ground, as there are a number of other related links that I'm trying to establish. At present all I am doing is creating a skeletel chronicle of Irish pre-history and early historical era. Thanks for the word up, Jim. Are you interested in any related areas yourself? We don't have much, and even fewer people working on same, so you'd be very welcome. Fergananim 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Many people the world over, even here in Ireland, thank God for the Corrs! Sadly for many of us, two of them are now happily married Mummys. Fergananim 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Just try to be really boring. Sometimes that helps. Mak (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly :) Mak (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27 February

My recollection (from a post-riot story in The Observer, I believe) was that there was some doubt as to the source of the fire and the spark for the attack, though now, of course, I can't find it. Still, I think the text gives undue to the responsibility of the Muslims in the mob, since the riots that followed were purely murderous retaliation, whipped up by extremist Hindu politicians, that killed twenty times as many Muslims as Hindus. --CalendarWatcher 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ivan comment from September 24

You are welcome. I look forward to working with you in the future if our paths cross again. Chris 18:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi. :) Sorry about the confusion. When doing date articles, before reverting, I wikipedia-search them, and I typed in the wrong name in the adress bar and since no article came up I reverted it. You can revert my edit. It was just a mistake, I apologize. Apple9 22:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck

Why did you add the {{sprotect}} template here? - Glen 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the reply. Just so you know the tag itself does not protect the page, but if you feel it needs it head to WP:RFP or message me. Thanks again :) - Glen 14:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section headings on March 4

Thanks for your comment on the section headings in the March 4. I put the section headings in the article as it was getting very long and it needed wikify. I do understand that it would be a good idea to have all the date articles consistent with each other. In fact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year group does state that pages should be consistent in style. I will leave a comment on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year group that I think the articles need section headings although it will be a long job updating all 366 days! Thank you for drawing this to my attention --Benjaminevans82 20:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just this second updated the links--Benjaminevans82 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roc(k)tober

Hazy memories As I recall, I simply typed "Rocktober" and nothing came up, so I made a redirect. If you have content to put into either, please do. Any other questions, feel free to talk to me, or e-mail. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't have any content...just checking. When you typed "Rocktober", what were you looking for? -- Jim Douglas 03:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aqsa Intifada

"Al-Aqsa Intifada begins", while technically a whole sentence, is far too insufficient. Whether Sharon's visit was the cause -- or intent -- it's indisputable that the violence followed his visit, which is what the entry says. --CalendarWatcher 23:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you complain about my revisions, report them, and then revert them yourself? I forgot what it was like to have a princpalUcscottb4u 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thanks for the support, but 3RR only allows repeated reversions of childish simple vandalism, to my understanding. At the article in question, the germ of the problem was a content dispute, even if it was a ridiculous one where the other side was violating WP policies. I still qualify repeated content-warring with unsourced, POV diatribes as "vandalism," but not the simple kind, so best to play it safe. Thanks for the comments. SnowFire 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie

Schwarzenegger may be an American citizen, but it DOES NOT make him "Austrian-born". That would mean that he is actually an American person who was born in Austria because of his parents' work or something like that. Jienum 20:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After your comment) Oh, right. So that "Austrian-born American" actually means Austrian but naturalized American citizen? Jienum 20:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits on my talk page

Funny, I never challenged anyone so you might want to check your accusations. Raja Lon Flattery 16:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and check this out: Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion.

Tell me where does it say about obligatory link? Raja Lon Flattery 16:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting your answer. Raja Lon Flattery 16:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. I do not know what exactly do you mean when you say "official" message but WP:VAND gives me right to delete anything except warnings. Raja Lon Flattery 17:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 October

Then that fact -- or some other indication of meaning of that exact date -- ought to be in the entry or article. --CalendarWatcher 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand -- though perhaps I should investigate -- whether the date means the date that the US Congress passed the law, the date President Roosevelt signed it, the date it went into effect, or some other nuance of the American lawmaking process I'm unaware of. --CalendarWatcher 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

Damn you! Beat me to it! Good work. :-) Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 03:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, have fun with that. In the meantime, I'm breaking my WikiParole (WikiBreak). Have an exam in... ten minutes. lol. Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 03:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

funny stuff

I like the assume good faith link, in light of your assumption of my addition of a simple fact as whining.--Paraphelion 20:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

"n the early hours of 8 November an Independent SPD member, Kurt Eisner, formed a Soldiers', Workers' and Peasants' Council and declared Bavaria a Volksstaat, a People's State." http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A979013 this is exactly the version i know (only that some people say it was late 7th) on 9th he formed an provisorical goverment. http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/EisnerKurt/index.html http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Eisner

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I actually get a kick out of it when it happens, so it's nice when someone lets me know that it's been reverted. -- Merope ^Talk 02:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do recent change patrol and vandal-fighting, then, yeah, that doesn't surprise me. I really love the vandals who don't read the bit about my being a woman, and so the homophobic graffiti they insert just doesn't make sense. Good times. Anyway, keep up the good work! -- Merope ^Talk 03:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weis Markets

Is there any way to restrict edits to Weis Markets to registered members only, for a time, if the anonymous user continues to vandalize it? --Captadam 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sumail massacre

Hi there, yes I was not quite sure about the deaths, but after reading numerious amounts of different media reports, the most consistant number I saw was 3,000. Thats why I changed it. Chaldean 04:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work on removing vanity entries, thus keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic, you are awarded the Working Man's Barnstar. --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abt:Nepal

I am very sorry about the edit in Nepal. I am learning to edit. It was completely unintentional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.131.76 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the instructions.202.161.131.76 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

Thanks for catching the vandalism of my talk page (EDIT: And my main user page as well lol). It seems I have pissed a few people off in my time here :P Konman72 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my previous note was not needed

Please delete this note when you have read it and sorry for any inconvenience. Hu 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you deleted your original comment...

...but seriously, don't you think this is just a bit snarky?

   Contrary to some of your recent edits, the clear style guideline for Wikipedia is that book titles are italicized.

Especially given that I was working through an extensive copyedit of that article, and you sent that note long after I'd already cleaned up the references?

If you have any thoughts on the content of what I changed, let me know on Talk:Variable Star. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologized for my original comment when I deleted it, because I had misinterpreted the edits. Your edits were fine, which is why I deleted the comment. Apparently my apology and correction were not enough for you. I was mistaken. I am sorry. I apologize. Okay? Hu 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your warning to User talk:64.12.117.14

Yes, I noticed it's an AOL IP. If whoever is using it continues to vandalise, though, it will still have to be blocked, if only for a short time – Gurch 17:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. That's my standard warning message for anyone I've already warned in the last 24 hours. Further vandalism after two warnings usually results in a block – if they ignore two (quite strongly-worded) messages, there seems little point in leaving a third. So if a user sees this message, they have made "previous edits" that have been reverted; sometimes only one but usually more, a common situation is that their first edit is reverted by an anti-vandal-bot, so they've actually vandalised three times before getting this message – Gurch 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, they seem to have stopped, which is nice – Gurch 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harshnes

Yea, I guess you're right. I'll unblock and replace with a test4. Sasquatch t|c 22:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

Can i ask for your opinion on the storm? I was only going by what it said on the BBC and with lots of eyewitness reports. However, i'm not really sure it is notable enough. Simply south 22:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i've just looked it up and a lot of pages are saying its the worst storm in decades. It may be notable but... Simply south 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory

Thank you for your supportive comments with regard to the usage of the term "Commonwealth of Nations" on my talk page. I have pointed to the backstory in my reply there. Hu 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in total agreement with you on that point...and I agree with you on the banned user. Colloquially, a Canadian never talks about the "Commonwealth of Nations", just "Commonwealth". But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the official term is "Commonwealth of Nations". Seems pretty cut and dried to me. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a particular edit

I reverted an edit a few days ago, and the user became very angry with me, even putting a test3 on my page. I didn't want to create a conflict (or bother going through the 3RR if it wasn't 100% sure); besides, I needed a few days to cool off because I was angry. But could you tell me if this was a valid change: [2]. I reverted it, on page patrol, because it states that this politicians history on gay rights is "poor" - POV language, and because it claims the son is gay, without giving a source (the source only says he's an interior designer). If I was out of line, please let me know; it's killing me! -Patstuart 04:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at it further, I see it's been sourced now. Nevermind. I will simply chance the POV language. Sorry about that. Thanks anyway though. -Patstuart 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is still a bit sloppy, but he's in the right ballpark. I did this google search and came up with this document, which he appears to be citing. It's entirely fair to say "www.hrc.org" gives Knollenberg a score of 1 out of 8 LGBT-related votes." "poor record" is arguably POV; "1 out of 8" is simple reporting. Although in this particular case, most reasonable people would agree that 1/8 qualifies as poor in your typical score card -- as long as we're very clear about who said it, and that it's not Wikipedia editorially stating that someone has a poor (or good) record on anything. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Is there a "backlog" standard?

Heh, I was just asking myself that same question. ;) 30-45 minutes sounds fine by me, or if there's a large number of actively vandalizing users listed with no apparent admin attention (say, 5 is moderate, 10 listings is pretty bad, maybe). You may get a bit more use out of {{adminbacklog}} in the case of AIV, though. Always good to see RC patrol up and running. If you saw, I just added a sort of "commented out" backlog tag; now, instead of typing it out each time, we just remove or replace the comment tags as appropriate. It's worked well at CAT:CSD for awhile, so I figured I might as well. Luna Santin 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best kept secret, that template. I'm not sure who originally thought of the commented backlog tags, but they're very nifty for recurring backlogs like that. Happy editing! Luna Santin 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.115.125.57

I don't understand this edit. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. I just realized that my last 10 minutes of editing were all really dumb edits. The cause is hard to explain, but I was editing old versions of user pages. I didn't know this until you broght it to my attention. Let me go back and revert my edits please. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Ok, I'm done. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prime number edit

You edited the prime number article to remove "Drawing an analogy from chemistry, prime numbers can be thought of as the elements from which all other non-prime numbers are composed of.". You labled it OR. While I agree with your removal of the sentence (it wasn't well-placed or well-written), it's not original research—the term "prime" comes from just this concept. The primes are quite literally the building blocks of the natural numbers, thanks to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked:

Is there a useful thought in there that we want to retain in the article?

Probably not, unless perhaps in the opening. I'm happy to see it removed in its current form—if you didn't remove it I would have. Still, I can't help but think that while I don't like the form or placement, the observation itself is good. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test5 vs. Test6

Well! I choose based on whether I feel the user really knows what he's doing is wrong. {{Test5}} seems more geared towards people who have had repeated warnings but their edits are still kind of nonsense/trivial/not all that bad. {{Test6}} is better for blatant vandals, people who put personal attacks into articles, stuff like that. But that's just me--I'm sure every admin has his or her own way of doing things. -- Merope ^Talk 14:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steorn

Jeff, what do you make of this? I reverted it and sent him a note telling him (politely) to take it elsewhere. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that was weird. I suppose it could be a legitimate retired policeman doing some insider-privileged investigation work, but I hope for his sake it's a hoax or prank instead. It sounds like he violated some privacy laws, and then was foolish enough to post that info to a public forum. I don't know how British police operate, but if someone identifying himself as a retired policeman called me on the phone and asked me to identify myself the way he said he did, I'd be tempted to hang up, too. But even ignoring the wholly inappropriate posting of that information to the article instead of the talk page, I agree with your suggestion. In any case, no matter who the editor actually is, anything he uncovered would be original research (highly original, in fact!), so it wouldn't help us work on the article. If he is legit, and does uncover "something very fishy", he'll have to get his adventure published in the mainstream press to make it useful to us. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely weird. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to ask an admin to scrub that edit from the page history. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a laissez-faire attitude about doing violence to the database for the sake of foolish editors, but knock yourself out if you wish. I have no idea if they would think it wise or unnecessary, but it can't hurt to ask. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins right now

Are there no admins online right now? Look how backed up WP:AIV is! -Patstuart 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just approaching the point where I'd say there's a backlog. My rule of thumb is there'a a backlog when nothing has been cleared in at least 30-45 minutes, with 10 or so in the queue. (But my guideline might be a bit high). When you think it's gone on too long, uncomment the {{adminbacklog}} tag at the top of the page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has only a few admin removals in the past 1.5 hours; now there are about 15 names. If the admins don't want to ban them, that's fine, but they usually remove the names if they're just getting lazy. -Patstuart 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, definitely looks backlogged now. I try to be really conservative about using that tag because I don't want to be a pain in the ass if someone is just taking some time to work through the list. After 45 minutes of no deletions, it's pretty clear there's a problem. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeropogetica (or whatever his sn is) is handling them right now - he's just not updating the AIV page. Prob because I messaged him right before you told me about the tag. -Patstuart 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

melonfarming

A little touch of Mark Kermode, from his on-air review. --CalendarWatcher 00:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church -- wiktionary:septuagenarian

test test test i read your comment haha and now i am writing on your talk page (whatever that is) wooot Lamdk 03:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in my 5th year of undergrad college!!!!11

as you may have observed, the internet is conducive to facetious behavior-- such as the use of faces to underscore points or comments made ^_^ ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamdk (talk • contribs) .

re: Your edit to Nepal

---Yes, I agree that it is very conservative that I reverted many changes. But most of the content were not good enough to include in the article. Before making big changes like the title of the article, there should be good discussions among authors and it should be based on the facts. Otherwise let the article as it is. Aaniyo 04:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until it becomes a Wikipedia:rule...

Then, I'll remove it, k? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonball1986 (talk • contribs)

Lindsay Lohan

All I know is, is that the entry was removed by an anon despite the birth-date matching the biographical article, so I restored it. I know nothing else about Ms Lohan. --CalendarWatcher 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry, my edit sumary was unclear. My apologies. --CalendarWatcher 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page warnings

Well, yes and no. It comes up about once a day on WP:AN/I (here is one such discussion, and here is the most recent comment. It seems that most people are leaning towards it being okay to remove warnings, but vandal fighters tend to disagree. The warning templates for this have been changed to be less harsh, but they still indicate that a user can be blocked for repeatedly removing warnings (see {{wr4}}). I'm sure there's a discussion about it elsewhere (maybe at the Village Pump), but, as you know, WP is so big that several discussions about the same topic could be held at once. In my opinion, I would like to make it policy that a user has to wait 24 hours before deleting or archiving them, but we'll see. If you come across any discussion other than that on WP:AN/I, would you drop me a line? Thanks! -- Merope ^Talk 23:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIAS Link on Steron

This is an entirely relevant link as it explains the physics behind the invention. It has nothing to do with me and it is certainly not advertising or any similar form of abuse. Not understanding the subject is no reason to delete my link, please put it back. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.84.124 (talk • contribs) .

Reverting my page

Patstuart has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Thanks for reverting my user page.

-Patstuart 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.

When I saw it, I felt it's inherent disruptiveness warranted it. It's like the wiki equivalent of an infinite pop-up. I wasn't being malicious or anything.HalfShadow 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

The comunism page needs to be seriously changed. It is unbelieveably pro cmmunism and prejects the communist philosophers in a positive academic and political light. This cna be damaging to your readers who do not learn to shun communism and do not learn about the violent past of communism. You are censoring in this issue and are devaluing wikipedia as a vesel of truth. I also do not like the jab about m writing being opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ion-weapon (talk • contribs) .

I find it funny that half the ones who act like their contributions were serious then start to vandalize your page. -Patstuart 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need for someone to remind me regularly...don't feed the trolls. I assumed good faith; look where it got me? (See: User talk:Ion-weapon) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; you handled it right; there was still the chance that the guy thought his contributions worthwhile (which he probably still does, but he's apparently not too good with self-control or seeing other people's POVs). You don't feed them once they get weird. If now he decided to get indignant, then you ignore him. -Patstuart 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your note. I though this guy was just pushing a particularly extreme anti-Communist agenda: anyone who thinks that Hitler was a Communist is in clear need of some deep political education! However, his last edit to this page descended into outright vandalism. I think your patience with him is admirable, but probably a waste of time. He's clearly nuts. White Guard 01:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's probably a little early by supposed standards, but I really hate when they vandalize user pages. I'm going to put up for AIV, just to see if any admins think so too. I've noticed sometimes admins will indef-block blatant vandals after only one warning if it's obvious they're vandals. -Patstuart 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK, but I already put him up. Do you want me to remove it? -Patstuart 01:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Turvey

Thanks for the info. For someone who is taking a break, Merope seems to be doing quite a lot, a full page of contributions on todays's date. In any event, I am not sure where to go with this since she seems to have ignored several aspects of the sd policy. Best guess, from the comment she put on the deletion log is that she mistakenly assumed it was an author requested deletion. I hope going ahead and adding info to it does not tread on anyones toes . . .. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is the same fellow. I am in BC. I have never met Turvey, but for many years he was a successful advocate for the poor. He managed to get his face on the news month after month. Recently awarded an Order of Canada on top of his Order of BC. Ought to qualify, seems to me. Cheers. KenWalker | Talk 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle, well, small world isn't it. Thanks for the leads, seems to me to be worth doing. By the way, that is an honourable name you wear . . . happened to come across the grave of James Douglas (Governor) recently. Quite a lot of notable folks named James Douglas it seems . . KenWalker | Talk 04:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check it out and let me know what you think.KenWalker | Talk 06:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hope I am right, CBC got the year of his OBC wrong by 20 years. Referred them to correct info on Wikipedia. :-) KenWalker | Talk 06:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the info on notability, it does give perspective. Actually, what was deleted seemed to me to show notability (eg Order of Canada, Order of BC) and I did put a note on the talk page that it was in progress. I think what may have happened was that the person who first put the SD template on it, after I questioned it, removed the template. Merope gave him a note asking that he not blank pages, just add template. As far as I know he didn't blank the page, but at my request he did remove the SD template from the article. The edit note in the deletion log seems to refer to Author requested deletion in the SD policy so I think what happened was that Merope thought the other fellow was the author and wanted it deleted. Anyway, I think it is clear now it should stay. Your comments throughout that process have been a big help and I do recognize these speedy deletions are quick and dirty decisions, all part of doing things well. By the way, I was going to reference another NYTimes article in the Turvey article but didn't because they require registration to access it. I am registered with them and have no problem with that, but I wonder whether a link to an article recognizing Turvey in that paper would be objected to if viewing it requires registration? Cheers.KenWalker | Talk 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Thanks for the tweaking, the article is coming together nicely. I appreciate the collaborative way this is working. I noticed what you said about someone else adding categories. Odd thing that didn't show up in my watch list. By the way, I see CBC has fixed their error KenWalker | Talk 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church

Jim Douglas said:
I noticed that and was about to fix it, but you'd already caught it, thanks! That seems like a more appropriate category than just Fundamentalism.

No worries about that. It was the duplicated word "Category" that caught me. It should be fixed now. Bobo . 06:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Douglas said:
Yup, I saw the red link (and then noticed the double Category:) as soon as I saved the edit, but by the time I corrected it, you'd already caught it.

Recent changes patrol keeps you awake a lot longer than you realize.. :D Bobo . 06:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks!

Of course. :) That page gets hit more often than even Wikipedia, I think. It's nuts, I tell ya. Thanks for all the effort you keep putting into RC patrol -- every little bit helps hold this place together. Luna Santin 07:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't see where they're coming from. Sure, Hitler was an asshole... everybody kinda knows that. Our job isn't to say "hurr hurr he sux lol," it's more to explain in a scholarly way what he did, so that people can hopefully understand why he was an asshole. The first time I heard of Phelps, somebody linked me to Wikipedia -- reading a neutral article really helped me understand the issues at hand better than anything else had, and that's part of what inspired me to become a Wikipedia editor to begin with. So, *shrug*. Those tigers are nuts, anti-nazis and anti-commies alike. Luna Santin 07:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu

Hello. The edit was saying that though Ash's Pikachu is stronger than the average one, it is weak for its experience. He used original research to back up his claim. That is the reason I reverted it. The majority of his edit was the original research, and, as you mentioned, it was very poorly written. Cheers T H L 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. T H L 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Jim, thank you so much for taking care of the issues that surfaced on my talk page during my wikibreak. I hope that I can make it up to you sometime. (PS - I don't consider myself off of my wikibreak because, honestly, I'm a wee bit tipsy right now. heh.) Talk to you soon. Cheers, -- Merope ^Talk 05:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user talk page. If I get the opportunity, I'll be sure to return the favor. Opelio 05:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

No problem. -- Steel 17:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply made

Reply made here. —12.72.71.32 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRA Correction

I apoligize for the insertion of the Irish Republican Army thread in Ira, I wasnt aware of the capital letter accuracy of wikipedia. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penfish (talk • contribs) .

Re: Prussian Blue

I get to cheat, via the #vandalism-en-wp channel on IRC. :) Luna Santin 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Maps

Hello Jim

I must admit that I am a little perplexed as to why you removed the Knolwedge Maps and Knowledge Views that I spent the last few days working on producing for Sir Winston Churchill from the Wikipedia website. The knowledge generation information we produced is free to all, which is in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy. I am sure that I don't need to quote you on the purpose and vision of Wikipedia but one of them is the advancement of knowledge generation. Cirilab is doing just that with information provided by Wikipedia and presenting it to their user base at no charge. And we actively promoted the Wikipedia and Gutenberg Projects within the web pages that you removed. In fact, both organizations are the primiary beneficiary of this effort as 20% of the revenue generated will go to donations to both organizations. This approach is specified as desired within the Wikipedia Foundation guide. The Wikipedia rules go on to state that overt advertising must not be used in the output that is generated from the Wikipedia information and I personally have ensured that such is the case. The Knowledge View of a Wikipedia page promotes Wikipedia first and foremost with a large banner and a link back to Wikipedia!

If you do not understand how our technology works and adds value to The Gutenberg Project and Wikipedia information bases then please feel free to ask for more information and instruction. But to simply delete thematically based Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Gutenberg and Wikipedia information that is provided at no charge seems irresponsible to me and not within the stated Wikipedia objectives of "generating knowledge".

I would really have appreciated an email from you asking for further details before you simply blew away four days worth of hard work. I sincerely believe that the Knowledge View of a Wikipedia page that we generate provides the Wiki reader with a valuable and different view of a Wikipedia page.

Cirilab's effort to raise money for Wikipedia:

I developed the Sir Winston Churchill Knowledge Map and Knowledge View pages so that I could begin to have discussions with Wikipedia as to what is the proper level of implementation so that we could create an Affiliate Program that would generate Donation revenue for Wikipedia. Cirilab was also going to offer to provide for free the ability of any Wikipedia Editor the ability to create a Knowledge View of their own Wikipedia Web Page as a free service!

Your actions have been very discouraging in the significant efforts that we have undergone to generate real value from the output that The Gutenberg Project and Wikipedia project produces for Internet users.

If we need to change the output associated with the Cirilab generated Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views that they are in line with Wikipedia's rules, then please do let me know what we need to do to satisfy these requirements. I will personally see to it that we comply.

But please also understand that there is a lot of work involved in creating Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views of Wikipedia and Gutenberg material. As such we believe that some recognition for our efforts is a fair request. In all of our knowledge generation output Wikipedia is the major benefactor and advertisor in the published material!

Hopefully, I'll get to communicate with you personally. My email is arnold.villeneuve@cirilab.com and my phone number is 613-833-0984. In this day and age of personless approach to business I have often found that many issues can be resolved quickly through personal dialog. Usually, before I toast someone I afford them the courtesy of personal communication so that they have a chance to explain their actions before I make final decisions.

In closing, I believe that Cirilab is providing a free and knowledge enhancing service to Wikipedia and Gutenberg users which is in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy. I sincerely hope that we can find a balance that allows Cirilab to provide Wikipedia users with the benefits of its Knowledge Map and Knowledge View technology.

Arnold Villeneuve www.cirilab.com arnold.villeneuve@cirilab.com 613-833-0984 "We Generate Knowledge" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arnold Villeneuve (talk • contribs) .

Response

Hi Arnold, thanks for the detailed note. I'll try to explain what happened.

As you can understand, the growth and popularity of Wikipedia has made it an attractive target for spammers, so external links are being examined very critically. When a new user appears on Wikipedia and immediately starts adding external links to multiple articles, without adding any explanatory comments, then those links are very likely to be immediately removed. In fact, I was only the first editor to delete those links, so I was the one who sent you the note. The links didn't appear to be run-of-the-mill spam, but they were connected to a commercial site, so, while I did delete them, I also sent you this personal note trying to explain why they were being deleted, and where they should be discussed:

External links added to Arthur Conan Doyle and Winston Churchill

It's not clear in what way those links enhance the articles. They appear to have been added specifically to promote www.cirilab.com. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising, and Wikipedia articles are intended to be encyclopedic, as opposed to mere lists of links. If these links are in fact non-commercial, and offer significant context to the readers of the articles, please explain their value on Talk:Arthur Conan Doyle and/or Talk:Winston Churchill. Thanks. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I sent that note, the links were reposted without any of the suggested discussion, and another editor deleted them for the same reason I had deleted them the first time – because they were unexplained external links from an unknown user.

One reason we can feel comfortable deleting material quickly is that it's not gone for good; every change to every article remains in the page history, and can be reinstated if necessary. Your work is not lost.

I should point out that I have no special power or position on Wikipedia; I'm just one of thousands of editors who attempt to implement Wikipedia policies to the best of our abilities and understanding. Would it be possible for you to post a note similar to what you've just sent me to Talk:Winston Churchill and Talk:Arthur Conan Doyle, explaining that you would like to add those links, and describing how they add value to the articles? Then wait a while (maybe a few hours, maybe a day or so) for reaction. If reaction is positive, then you can repost the links again with confidence that some other editor won't immediately delete them.

Please feel free to follow up with me on anything at all.

Regards -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deleted information

Knowledge Map

A Knowledge Map of Sir Winston Churchill's writings.

Knowledge Maps

Developer Area

Jim

Is there a Wiki Developer area where I can actively promote the Knowledge Maps and Knowledge Views to get feedback?

Arnold Villeneuve 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Page

Jim

I created a discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirilab in order to get Wikipedia Community feedback so that we can change our Knowledge Interfaces so that they are acceptable to everyone.

I'm not sure if the page will survive but if it does I know that input from everyone will help create a view of Wikipedia and The Gutenberg Project that we believe will be of value to the User community.

Arnold Villeneuve 20:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]