User talk:Malangthon

Nobody ever welcomed you? Weird. Anyway:

Welcome!

Hello, Malangthon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! --Elkman - ^(talk) 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Howdy fellow comonwealther :) How's the land down under? :) Im happy to see someone who traveled to Georgia being involved in editing Georgian related topics. Please continue your valuable contributions and I hope we can work together to improve those articles. Cheers mite! Ldingley 20:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELT and dogme

I agree with you re your comments on English language learning and teaching, as you will have seen from my vote to keep the dogme article. And now it is almost as if Wikipedia has DUG itself a hole! I would think it is much more difficult to get a new article in, as one has already been deleted. If you want to try, I will support you. BrainyBabe 17:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please note that the best place to reply to a message such as mine above is either immediately below it, in which case it will show up on my watchlist, or on my talk page, in which case I will see a link to it when I next log on. I do not usually have the "email this user" function turned on, and you left your message on my user page, which I choose to leave blank.

fyi: . Have looked for your talk page several times and only ever found your user page Malangthon 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. There it is. Never mind. Malangthon 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know where to get the dogme article that was deleted. In any case, copying it is not going to help. I suggest you write a fresh article, using whatever sources you can find (Guardian articles, journal pieces, conference papers, etc), and I will be happy to chip in as it progresses with amendments and clarifications as necessary. Good luck! BrainyBabe 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malangthon -- Once again you have posted a message on my user page, which I have moved to my talk page. I would really appreciate it if in future you could not make changes to my userpage. If you feel it is appropriate to make non-trivial changes to an editor's userpage, please could you explain why. Please note that I choose to keep my user page blank. I will insert an announcement to that effect, thus rendering it no longer blank. Because your message was not on my talk page, I did not receive an automatic alert, so I have only just become aware of this dispute.

You are almost certainly right on points of principle, and you have certainly kept your language moderate in the face of provocation. I agree that Dogme is a notable topic within ELT. I do not know the user Calton. I do not know Wikipedia procedures beyond this point, except to ask for independent arbitration (something I have never done). If you have any specific action you wish me to take, for example adding my voice to an add or delete debate, please ask, by leaving a message on my talk page not my user page. Beyond that I cannot help. BrainyBabe 08:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

You're very welcome. And thanks for the polite and informative note to Holisticlife. Sometimes I try to be helpful like that, but I didn't have the time or words ready in my head this time, so I appreciate that assistance.

Thanks also for bringing an expert eye to Autism. If I have any suggestions regarding your contributions, I'll make corrections and give you a heads up, but on a glance, they seem great. Gotyear 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't remember ever editing the Autism article. If I ever did, it most likely was to revert vandalism. I don't claim to have any sort of knowledge about it and so you're probably knocking at the wrong door. Perhaps you could post a WP:RFC request for comments or, more simply, ask for advice on one of the various relevant WikiProjects. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a simple reverter and researcher without specialist knowledge, which is why I waited until now to look over Talk:Autism and the related changes since I didn't have a lot of time a few days ago.

I got the gist of what you and the others were saying, and the resolution of calling it a developmental disability as classified by the WHO and APA seems with a nod to the controversy of classification et al sees amicable. Do I characterise it right? Gotyear 16:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you got it. And it is important to avoid the simplistic view of these issues. The perspective that this is simply pure science and clearly objective information hides the nature of it all from the naïve and compels the calloused to gloss over the real dilemma in these issues--it ain't all that clear and it certainly is not etched in stone. A lot of these conditions (take alcoholism or epilepsy) are changing in relation to social as well as scientific perception (the stuff we used to hear in the 50s would seem barbaric today) and those who have to live with it get bounced around emotionally and physically while the layperson on the street chews up the pop psych/science view of it and makes life hell for those who are saddled with labels and on and on it goes. Can't see Wikipedia lending itself to the careless, calloused and obtuse.Malangthon 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks. I myself am one of those laypersons who you are helping to educate on the complexities of the issue, one small but sure bit at a time. Gotyear 11:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogme ELT

A tag has been placed on Dogme ELT, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Dogme ELT is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Dogme ELT saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Calton | Talk 10:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently recreated or reposted material which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies at Dogme ELT. Please do not recreate this article without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review.

P.S.: In your laundry list on the Talk Page, you left out "Is not a dessert topping or floor wax", which is just as relevant as everything you did actually list. As the message I put on your page clearly says, material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion, namely this one. Calton | Talk 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: " This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate"

This is an error of fact. The previous discussion that resulted in a deletion of an article concerned an entirely different article. The stub that was precipitously deleted was not that article nor was it copied from the article--it was based on independent search of the topic and then written from the sources cited. This reasoning is based on nothing justified by Wikipedia guidelines

RE: "You have recently recreated or reposted material which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies"

It was NOT, I repeat, NOT in accordance of deletion polices. That is an error of fact. In point of fact, the stub that was deleted was deleted in violation of the policies. That deletion made this year (2007 and not of the article deleted in 2006) was made without recourse to the stated policies for deletion as are listed here on this talk page. Using a unwarranted deletion to validate another unwarranted deletion is spurious and circular reasoning.

This is also notice that a message placed here by me was deleted which is also in violation of Wikipedia policy. Deleting entries a user makes to their own talk page is vandalism.

I answered this previously: "P.S.: In your laundry list on the Talk Page, you left out "Is not a dessert topping or floor wax", which is just as relevant as everything you did actually list. As the message I put on your page clearly says, material that was previously deleted in a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion, namely this one"

This is reasoning by false analogy and it constitutes nothing more than abuse. The reasons for the deletion is circular reasoning: unwarranted deletion now justifies yet another unwarranted deletion.

RE: " Please read our criteria for speedy deletion"

May I remind User Calton that 'our' includes this editor. Mustering group support by trying to marginalise this editor is an abusive and meaningless, not to say, inaccurate ploy.

If User Calton has nothing constructive to bring to this discussion besides faulty reasoning and a hidden agenda, I respectively request that User Calton obstain from further remarks and actions regarding this stub. If User Calton has a serious problem regarding the Dogme ELT stub, that User must now make his or her way to the process of Arbitration.

Malangthon 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Bucky, I'm quoting and carrying out actual policy. You're making frivolous requests, asserting false charges ("vandalsim" [sic] is a serious charge unsupported by reality), and making threats you are unqualified or unable to carry out (your original frivolous request for arbitration has already been removed, I note), while completely ignoring what you've been advised. To recap:

This article was previously deleted after an AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme ELT
This is reposting of said deleted article, so qualifies under speedy deletion policy, specifically Section G4.
This has no reliable sources -- zip, zero, none, nil, goose egg, bupkis -- so completely fails to deal with any objections raised at the AFD discussion.
The place to dispute this is at deletion review

So stop with the empty threats and deal with the actual issues. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The User Calton has persisted in being abusive and trivialising the attempt by editor Malangthon to add to Wikipedi in compliance with Wikipedia policy.

User Calton is not applying actual policy accurately at all, in that he or she is not an administrator--as is stated on his or her User page--I do not see how that User can carry out actual policy. Only adminstrators can delete an entire article from Wikipedia.

The asserted reasons for deletion have been given and they have been addressed by this editor and User Calton persists in declaiming unsubtantiated rationale for what is in fact vandalism--wholesale deletion not in compliance with Wikipedia policy.

To the administrator who deleted the stub I placed here, This is NOT, I repeat NOT the article deleted in 2006 after the deletion discussion. This is a new stub that has been deleted without recourse to actual policy and that unwarranted deletion is now the sole basis for the ongoing attempts at deletion of a valid stub which complies with Wikipedia policy. I restate this charge of vandalism here. Deletions are being made that are not in compliance with Wikipedia policy and furthermore, actual policy for deletion is being used to prop up that unwarranted deletion. If this is an oversight, please stop. If this is deliberate, I will make another Request for Arbitration regarding Misuse of Administrator privileges

Again, I request that User Calton desist from his or her frivolous remarks here and either adopt a tone of respect for other editors here on Wikpedia or stop posting on Malangthon's User page. Malangthon 01:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

This message (see below) was placed here earlier and was deleted. I made a pdf file of that version and therefore documented this entry showing that it was in fact deleted. I am placing it here again and will make another copy. I also made earlier comments to User Calton that have been removed. I have no idea who is doing this. Malangthon 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placed on Request for Arbitration page [[1]]

Request for protection from speedy deletion of "Dogme ELT" stub

A previous article under the title "Dogme ELT", or an approximation thereof, deemed self-promoting was deleted. (I read some brief comments in another article and have no further information.) I never saw the article and have only a vague idea what it said. I researched the topic of the deleted article (not the article itself) and decided Dogme ELT merited mention here on Wikipedia. I then wrote a brief stub with sources about the topic. I received a message today from someone named Calton, not an administrator according to the talk page under the user name, who instructed me to discuss the deletion of the stub. I went to the stub only to find that it had already been speedily deleted and there is no discussion on record of its deletion. I can only surmise that an administrator deleted it. I can not actually access any discussion for the actions taken and thus many of the initial options to forestall the deletion are denied me. I have no idea who did it or why. The stub complied with the Wikipedia guidelines, the reasons for deleting it are therefore spurious. I have placed my rationale on the Dogme ETL talk page. Please see that is is not deleted until there is at the very least a reasonable case made for deletion that I can access and take part in the discussion rather than this spur of the moment, mysterious action for reasons unknown by persons unknown that has been taken. Malangthon 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV/Dogme ELT

I filed a request for you at deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The mix up and the subsequent difficulty in actually discussing the deletion with those invovled has made this whole affair a bit like the Key Stone Cops. Malangthon 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Georgia

Dear Malangthon, many thanks for taking an interest in Georgia. I would be extremely happy if we can cooperate to bring the History of Georgia article to a FA status. I will also try to collect some sources. I think it is better to have them in English so as to be easily verifiable for other non-Georgian speaking Wikipedians. Yes, most of the Georgia-related articles need involvement of an experienced native speaker of English. So I would be grateful if you could help with this. There are some other users who will eagerly join us. Respectfully, Kober^Talk 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Speck

I recently uploaded a photo of Speck during his trial under the fair use tag, but it's not being accepted. I have no clue as to why (I've given a fair use reason). But it's something the article needs.

I'm also of the opinion that the article needs improving to make it better, and I'll start working on that over the weekend. Carajou 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of the article describing the events of the crime were taken from a book that was not cited. The details were only the sort of thing that Speck would have known.Malangthon 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autism 2

I've placed Autism's RFP at the Request for protection page, just so you know. ^_^ V-Man737 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; protection requests go on WP:RPP, not the articles themselves. Regardless, I declined the protection request because it didn't seem necessary; there has been very little vandalism as of late. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I declined the request"? "I"? Who are you? Well, Tariqabjotu, whomever you are, please desist from interferring. What ever 'very little vandalism' of late means to you it is clear that a lot of hard working people are having to pull a lot of very trashy comments off the site. Meanwhile many others come here hoping to get information that is important to them. School teachers and parents come to articles like Autism and end up reading filth that very disturbed individuals have decided to smear all over them. You have spent no time at all on this project and your spurious off the cuff dismissal of our efforts is hardly what Wikipedia needs.There has been a lot of vandalism and your less than accurate assessment is not constructive. You do not even introduce yourself. The WP:RFP actually does say to place the request at the top of the article. If that is not what is required tell someone to go back and learn the language and then write instructions and stop playing NIGYYSOB with the manual. Meantime we are getting hammered by people who need long hours in therapy. Malangthon 14:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be important to note a few things at this point. By looking at User:Tariqabjotu, you can see that he/she is an admin, which is what a user needs to be in order to represent Wikipedia's decisions in regards to protecting and unprotecting, among a myriad of other things. The amount of vandalism Autism has received lately certainly is a lot, but not so terrible to the point that good-faith editors like you and I can't keep up with them. Incidentally, what does NIGYYSOB mean? V-Man - ^T/_C 02:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello V-Man737

Looked at the user page and we learn:

1. he has issues with his ethnicity,
2. he has issues with religions

He has issues

3. Nothing at the top of the page says, this guy is an administrator who acts without reaching consensus. It is tucked into a small corner that took me some time to find. And as we all know administrators do get their pants pulled down and and spanked from time to time so he is not the final word and he has not served our purpose here by making his call clear or relevant. He has undermined the process of mediator/arbitrator.

Important point here: Civilised people introduce themselves. A simple. "Hi, I am Q. I have been assigned to review this request. I have made decison Z since A, B and C criteria are not met. Let's take another look at this in a couple of weeks and see how it is going," would suffice

Here is another consideration--how many parents with small chidlren run over to the site on Winston Churchill looking for some ray of hope--or Chemistry, or Muons? They don't. Their child is behaving in a very distrubing way and they do not know why--doctors will be called but long after their fears have begun to snowball. We are cheap and some pretty good rags say we are as good as Encyclopaedia B. Now they come over here and they get "LUKE WELBURN HAS AUTISM THE FUCKING TARD" repeated 20 times. Great.

We have full-protection for edit wars coming out of our ears--dealing with pettiness and self-absorbtion is a prime concern. Ironically, the protection we would like here for the community who have very real needs is well down on the list of concerns. The problem with guys like Tariq is he or she is buried in the box of WP culture so deep our extension into the non-cyber world is no longer apparent. (He can not even offer a real identity. This is often little more than a stage for people who hide behind masks and not a real community with a very serious and significant purpose as it is to people like myself and this is also a primary reason why WP is getting hammered justly by its critiques and why Sanger et al are doing something else.)

Teachers and parents read this article and others like it for very serious reasons about very serious concerns and they get "exhibits tendencies to suckle on mother's breasts and vagina until mid-teens." What utter shite!

Bottom line, Tariq is not civil enough nor socially skilled enough to be admin of anything here, all other concerns aside. And he is just wrong about this as well.

NIGYYSOB is "Now I Got You You Son of a Bitch." It is a game described way back in the 60s when books by people like Rolla May and Carl Rogers were all the rage. The goal is to deliberately trap people and put them on the offensive--this one is where the policy wonks on WP are going off on minutia buried in small print in myriad pages with multiple interpretations and pretending that the points they try to shove down people's throats are obvious and readily accessed is classic NIGYYSOB. Who can find it? What does it mean? Normal questions for educated adults are disregarded for the primary purpose of trying to control the situation and just basically blow people off or put them down. Not the WP ideal really.

Regards, Thom Simmons

Do you have a name? Malangthon 03:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thom!

Yes, my name is Ricky Ratzlaff.

If you really feel that Tariq is not a good admin, you should bring it up using some form of dispute resolution, rather than degrading his character in a form of ad hominem arguing.

I really think that we are doing well enough in handling the vandalism; provided we keep refreshing our watchlists, we'll be able to quickly revert any vandalism done to the article. If you feel it is getting to be too much, just take a wikibreak, because everything will still be here when you come back, and it is easier to deal with vandalism when we aren't facing angry mastodons. ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think of it, working out the problem in a civil manner on Tariq's talk page would be a ton easier and much less stressful than using dispute resolution. V-Man - ^T/_C 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky,

Ad Hominem? Get serious. The guy pops up and says you can't have it and then, poof, he's gone. I pointed out that he was not even skilled enough or considerate enough to introduce himself. And what is the criteria for the measure anyway? How many and what sort of vandalism does it take? No defintion at all. Very bush-league, ad hoc and inconsiderate.

If it is too much? Not the point at all. Not at all. The foul nature of the vandalism is the point. Much of it is just silly, like a couple of junior high students sitting at the computer with nothing to do but waste time. But as lot of it is either full-on deletions or foul language. And here is something else I see, a lot of people going to a lot of trouble to set it right. You want to handle Tariq, be my guest. It needs a deft hand. But like I said, he went to a lot of trouble to tell us about his disappointing childhood and zip about his position here. They guy is a just not a professional. Malangthon 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly what drove me to mention ad hominem is that I've seen almost every editor on Wikipedia adopt a similar approach toward vandalism - that is, rely on reverts rather than protections. He could have been any editor with any qualifications, and IMHO his decision would not have been different. That's one reason I'm not a huge fan of user pages - they open doors for personal judgement by making it easy to skim over them looking for reasons to doubt a person's credibility. Of course he is not professional; that is why we should be grateful for his service. Nobody who belongs on Wikipedia is paid for what they do on it.

If a little vandalism is going to bring down the Autism article, it would have brought Wikipedia down years ago. But for some reason, the good contributions outweigh the vandalism, and Wikipedia marches on. People who use Wikipedia should be aware of this, as the way Wikipedia works is such that one day you might access an article about Wind chimes and be confronted with an image of a penis. Is that a good reason to completely change Wikipedia's underlying modus operandi? Certainly not. Good-faith editors are usually very quick about catching vandalism, and it is reverted in no time, especially in articles about important subjects like Autism. We just need to become more clever than the vandals. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"Of course he is not professional; that is why we should be grateful for his service. Nobody who belongs on Wikipedia is paid for what they do on it." Not my point actually. Professionalism is about ethos and service. We do this 'Pro Bono Publico': For the good of the public. To that extent, we are all fulfilling a professional goal. One need not be paid to be a professional--the "Oldest Profession" argument about prostitution is the primary rebutall of this paid = professional. To use this forum/venue whatever to serve personal goals is not integrally non-professional; this can be enlightened self-interest. To misuse it is unprofessional though. I think Tariq has overstepped the line here. There is evidence that he has another agenda than to serve the public good. Don't get me wrong. This is fun and creative for a lot of us and that is to be encouraged: It is a great motivator with very constructive gains. So, basically, while it may not be too much to ask that others be grateful for his time, it is too much to ask that this justifies his attitude as demonstrated through his actions. He in turn needs to be grateful for our time as well. Malangthon 01:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky,

RE: Rely on reverts rather than protections That is illuminating. You do see though, I hope, that I am going for something a little more than this internal-management issue.

RE: Personal judgement. He can write what he wants. Cyberspace is strange in that people will put personal information there they might not mention to anyone unless they are on trusting terms. It may just be catharsis but it is very common. He has a position of responsibility here but he elected to put his own issues at the forefront and by doing so, invited myriad interpretations of his choices by complete strangers. His choice.

Re: "If a little vandalism is going to bring down the Autism article, it would have brought Wikipedia down years ago" I do not think this generalisation makes the argument. It is big enough now so that it has gained the social intertia to resist this. As it grew, it gained unwanted attention but it has also gained credibility and inertia--a point you make by the way. In the early days this level of vandalism could have brought it down and there were serious divisions in the managment that also threatened the project. I think it is too big to bring down now unless there was a massive concerted effort to do so.

Re; Penises and wind chimes: Yes, it is still flawed but no, it need not be a complete overhaul. The hypothetical solution goes to extremes in my opinion. This needs fine tuning. Simply rating an article by the amount and type of vandalism and, say, its importance, and then imposing restrictions on who edits will slow the nastiness down, it need not be a complete remake. Clear guidelines will help allay misunderstanding. Malangthon 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thom -

Those are very good points. I wonder if there is a way to implement them? I've not been around long enough to know... V-Man - ^T/_C 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky,

I have not got a clue. There must be a discussion forum but that would mean that they would want to listen. Even so much as a signature that includes their postion would be a step forward. Malangthon 01:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemochromatosis

I see you added some sources. I think web-based references like the ones you added are not the ideal type of reference here. After all, these are written with the use of articles from medical journals. We might as well cite the journals themselves, especially haemochromatosis, which has been reviewed very thoroughly by various authors recently (such as Pietrangelli in the NEJM a little while ago). JFW | T@lk 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We agree and disagree.

A. The web based source means it is accessible. A primary concern in research anywhere is accessibility and these journals cost money. Readers in small towns in new new Zealand or Vietnam will not have access to the journals. It is that straightforward.

B. On the other hand, the very fact that a web based article has a primary source must be noted and the guide provided. In that way both ends of the economic spectrum will have access.

C. These are some of the most high profile and credible sources extent.

D. The article still has large citation gaps.

E. The journals will still remain beyond the usual reader's expertise and the cited sources are specifically designed to provide expert opinon and research analysis to the average reader--a shortcoming the journals do not care to address and a divergence that makes them substantively incompatible with some goals of the WP. In other words, with the journals cited or not, the sources I presented are still essential for the WP to function. This is not a specialists' guide to haematology. Malangthon 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Talk:Hemochromatosis. JFW | T@lk 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Do not post copyrighted material on Wikipedia

Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan). You are not allowed to post copyrighted material here PERIOD. [2] The material has been removed again and an admin has been alerted. See the discussion here: [3]. Also please moderate your tone. Personal attacks, including spurious accusations, are not acceptable behaviour. Sparkzilla 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is correct and repeated infringement after warnings will lead to being blocked from editing. Copyright violations are taken very seriously. Tyrenius 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: The article posted was released by Mainichi for personal and non-commercial use. The policy has been in effect for years. They require only proper attribution. The Sparkzilla entity has deliberately misrepresented this issue since WP does have permission to post with proper attribution. Sparkzilla is in violation of the WP policy. Malangthon 21:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal and non-commercial use permission is not allowed on wikipedia. It has to be Public Domain or GFDL. This means it can be used by anyone for any purpose (and amended) provided there is attribution. Tyrenius 00:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not allowed to post the article to the talk page. Wikipedia is not to be used as a source. Sparkzilla 23:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Nova (eikaiwa)

RFC/discussion of article Nova (English school in Japan)

Hello, Malangthon. As a prominent contributor to Nova (English school in Japan), you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan), in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- ZayZayEM 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --ZayZayEM 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP on Copyright and OR

I understand your concern over online articles disappearing, but blatant cut and paste of copyrighted news sources on this basis breaches Wikipedia:Fair use, which allows small brief quotations provided they are "used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea".

No it does not. It did not appear in the article but in the discussion and now Sparkzilla is insisting that the old links in the article be choppped because they expired. His is a waiting game and the statementes made in the article this month will be deleted in a year because there are no supporting documents. Wake up. The material is released. Full stop. Malangthon 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution of facts that are "common knowledge" still require Attribution which is something I've been moving more Nazi on these days given the very low standing Wikipedia seems to have amongst intellectual illuminati. Things such as NOVA unionisation are "common knowledge", but only amongst certain circles. I don't think many New Yorkers will know that one.

Yes they will. It has made the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal and has as much chance of being common knowledge in NYC as the name of the producer of Saturday Night Live--if they want to know it, they can. Malangthon 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally your assertions of personal knowledge, personal involvement borders on Original Research. I have personal experience with AEON (eikaiwa) but I can't just go adding those facts without appropriate attributions. In the same vein, please stop pushing yourself as some form of authority on the subject, like blogs, personal claims of noteriety by WikiUsers have no verifibility, and therefore must be taken cautiously. You are not a Reliable source. This isn't a personal attack. It is the way wikipedia operates. It relies on utilising other texts, not the authority of its editors to create an idealistic authorative (and hopoefully correct) tertiary text.--ZayZayEM 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am. I can be verified. Why? I am a source because my testimony in many of those labour courts and district courts case that have been reported is part of the court documentation as are my interviews with the media and publications in this area. You are mistaken. You have lost it. The article has been commandeered by NOVA and you have aided and abetted them. Malangthon 11:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IAC; I found it just for you.--ZayZayEM 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An online article is not invalidated, just because it has subsequently been removed. See WP:CITE#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. Tyrenius 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that. (Both of them.) Not at all sure wha this means--not invalidated because it has been removed? I will take a stab at at least one interpretation. Newspaper articles in Japan becomes inaccessible very quickly and therefore unsubstantiated. Saying that the source is not invalidated is fine if there are other ways of getting it. Newspapers in Japan do not have morgues--they do not keep these past issues either on-line or at their facilities. I ascertained this many years ago when tracking down various stories while in Japan. Unlike the NY Times or the Guardian who keep issues dating back to the 18th century, the papers in Japan are very superficial in this regard. Placing a copy in the WP archives when permitted is certainly an ethical and responsible alternative. Malangthon 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The "PROPOSED" IAC guidelines are absolute rubbish. Full-stop. And anyone who has an opinion worth listening to agrees. Malangthon 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have to warn you that it is stricly forbidden to state details about another editor's real life identity or activities (whether true or false), unless that editor has themselves chosen to reveal it.

And why would you think that such a warning is merited since I have not stated any facts about any one's identity? This is a red herring.Malangthon 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not permitted to post copyright text anywhere on wikipedia, unless it has been verified that the text is released as public domain or GFDL. (One way to accomplish this is for a web site to post on the site that they release specific text as GFDL - this cannot then be withdrawn.) The only exception is a small amount of text which can be used as Fair Use.

Again, this is unmerited. That assertion evidently refers to a false statement made by someone here. It would be a good idea to track these allegations down before making such erroneous assertions. I have stated numerous times, the article in question was released, permission was given. The allegations of copyright violation are utterly unfounded. Malangthon 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Comment on edits and not editors. If editing becomes frustrating, I suggest backing off for a while till you feel calmer. Please desist from referring to another editor as "entity". This is plainly insulting. He is a person, not an entity.

Presumptions about calmness or any state of mind is a bit arrogant and certainly uninformed. I can reasonably surmise that it is meant to provoke and not conciliate. For the record, an enquiry to the immigration service in Tokyo (Ministry of Justice handles this section of laws) for me by a union in Tokyo confirmed that no such person as Spark Zilla lives in Japan. Therefore, they/it/he/she could be anyone or any group. "Entity" is accurate in so far as that person or persons has made clear. As for civil, the attacks made by that user or users have been utterly false and do in fact accuse me of international copyright law violations--that is very serious and you have made no mention of this fact.Malangthon 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued violation of any of these can lead to being blocked. I hope this will not happen, and a more collegiate and harmonious relationship with other editors will be the way forward.

Tyrenius 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far there have been numerous violations of WP policy, primarily beginning by using WP as a place to promote a commercial entity, to wit, NOVA English Conversation School. No mention has been made of the fact that most of the text if not all of the text that actively promotes this business have never been sourced. My credentials are well known. I am conducting my affairs in a professional manner. Merely making vague references to a rather large and ambiguous body of text does not substantiate the assertions of violations of any kind.Malangthon 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) Request for Comment

A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you.David Lyons 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Japan taskforces

In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for helping out! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum.

In view of your contributions to the Autism article, would you please comment at this AfD (if you have not already done so). I'm looking to close that AfD, but it seems to need more comment. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUK

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifar ious1 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]