User talk:ObiterDicta/Archive1

Kent Hovind article

Hi Dakpowers!

You have reverted many of my edits on the Kent Hovind article with no explanation. I am confused by this because many of them were simply attempts to clean up the style and grammar of the piece. They could in no way be considered vandalism. Please review the changes you made through the anti-vandalism software. If you still think they are justified, please discuss this on the talkpage. If not, kindly restore them. Best, --JChap 04:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you've restored them. Thanks. --JChap 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just reverted some edits by an anonymous user who put his inqueries for source information in the article. Happy editing, and thanks for your contributions! DakPow e rs (Talk) 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, ObiterDicta, 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 <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=auto onmouseover="return (window.status='auto');" onmouseout="window.status=;">auto</a>matically 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! DakPow e rs (Talk) 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rodriguez

Hi there. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I put the copyedit tag you removed in Alex Rodriguez article back on. The tone is still far from being encyclopedic and is in dire need of a heavy copyedit. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'm a bit confused on the use of the copyedit tag. It seems like it should be reserved for articles with grammatical/spelling errors. If merely being "unencyclopedic" were grounds for inclusion, it seems like well over 50% of the articles on Wikipedia should have that tag at this point!!! I agree with you that the Rodriguez article is still in this category. It seems like it would be far better to save this tag for the articles that are in the worst shape and need basic attention to get up to a minimum level of readability. I would appreciate your thoughts. --JChap 13:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of using the copyedit tag judiciously, I think we might have separate criterion for when to put it on. For me, the purpose of the tag is not to slight the article or the editors, but to alert other Wikipedians that help is needed to make the article the best it can possibly be. I'm sure that the article is seen by millions of people (it is the sixth website seen on Google when one searches for Alex Rodriguez) so hopefully the tag will help in fixing the article and hopefully becoming a featured article at some point! Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I hadn't taken offense. Just a misunderstanding over the term "copyedit." Is there a tag for articles that need brief and immediate attention to get them up to a basic readability level but that doesn't involve the time it would take to get the Rodriguez article up to encyclopedic? --JChap 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Template_messages. There's a bunch of tags there that might help, particularly in the cleanup and maintenance sections. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Band page"

Hi JChap2007! An article being about a band is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, {{db-band}} does allow for the deletion of articles about bands that don't assert notability for the band. You may want to use that (or the older {{db-bio}}) instead in future. Happy editing! ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. --JChap 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD for advertisements

Hello JChap2007. Unfortunately, advertising does not apply as a criteria for deleting material (usually <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=business onmouseover="return (window.status='business');" onmouseout="window.status=;">business</a>es under {{db-group}} or similar templates, so I have had to replace your tags with {{prod}} as an advertisement. Not to worry, I did similar things when I was a newbie (See User talk:Blnguyen/Archive1) and I am now an administrator, who can process these requests, so I am equally happy to explain deletion procedure to others. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JChap 06:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Ying Pun Community Complex

I am keeping on editing the page of Sai Ying Pun Community Complex. I am sorry to mistakenly remove the tag. But I am not happy that some people say that I just remove the tag but do nothing when I am editing any page.

For your information, before the construction of Sai Ying Pun Community Complex, the colonial building stood was later become a famous landmark because of its historic value and the ghost stories in the houses. Shrimp wong 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you didn't edit it and I now agree it is worthy of inclusion. My only objection is to editors who remove tags unilaterally. You have said this was a mistake, and I believe you. Thanks, --JChap 06:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reading my edits and see is it ok to remove the tags? Shrimp wong 07:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an nice article. Support removal of tags. --JChap 12:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of women's oppression

I don't think that this is a personal opinion page seeing as all the information is correct and agreed upon by anthropologists, rather than my own opinion. i am simply reitterating the facts collected by others. The theories presented are no more theoretical than our assumptions about egyptian history, or any other ancient civilization. thank you for your time natalie

Roger Ambrose

I'm not really all that sure that the subject's involvement in an article should affect its AfD. I don't understand why your opinion on Ambrose's notability is affected by his actions at the article. I mean, when Jack Thompson (attorney) tried to add to his article, we didn't delete it, we considered his addition and decided it was vandalism. (Of course, then he threatened to sue.) If the problem is that Roger wrote the article himself, then the solution is a rewrite, not to delete. I don't think anyone is arguing against a rewrite. --Maxamegalon2000 00:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying; he shouldn't be contributing to his own article, and maybe he should take some time off before editing any articles in the future. Nevertheless, I don't think that it should have the bearing you think it should have on the AfD for the article. If we were debating him as an editor, I probably wouldn't vote keep, but we're voting for his article, and I do think he's probably more notable than some of those porn stars. --Maxamegalon2000 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had noticed that, thank you though for the heads up. Batman2005 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much more concerned with the removal of comments (including mine) from the AfD discussion. It's well past time for an admin to intervene. B.Wind 01:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment: noted. I see a 70.34.86.240 (talk · contribs) has also been busy adding links for rather non-notable Ambroses.

PS If you're interested in this sort of thing, there's a similar unresolved situation over Bob Fink: mostly written by closely involved parties (if not Fink himself) with excessive promo and self-linking. Tearlach 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young scholars program

I've responded to your message on my talk page. --Starwiz 03:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your speedy deletion on Nigger

I see you put the article in question up for speedy deletion as an attack page. That's an entirely understandable thing to do, but it was not actually a recently created attack page, it was a severely vandalized version of a far more acceptable article. No big deal and no harm done -- just be sure to check article history a little more closely in the future! -- Captain Disdain 14:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Roger C. Ambrose

FYI: I have posted a comment: [1]
Roger ambrose 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

afd

The result of the nomination of Shaker Aamer for deletion was "keep". I am not sure I fully understood your objections. I'd like to take them into account, if you are willing to take another run at explaining them.

You wrote that all the Guantanamo detainees were vicious terrorists. This seemed to be some kind of joke I didn't get. Rumsfeld and others repeatedly claimed that the detainees were "the worst of the worst". And, so long as the DoD was able to keep the identities of the detainees, and the allegations against them, secret, there was no way for the public to make an informed decision as to whether to believe these assertions. Earlier this year the Denbeaux study methodically examined the (then anonymous) allegations. It found that approximately half of the detainees were not accused of being members of al Qaeda or the Taliban. Now the transcripts of the detainees Combatant Status Review Tribunals have been made public. IMO in most cases they do not support "the worst of the worst" claim. I think that is notable.`` -- Geo Swan 15:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- When I said the detainees were vicious terrorists, I was being sarcastic. I agree with you that the US policy itself is notable (obviously), but per the nomination, I really doubt that every single detainee is notable enough for his own article. Certain detainees (such as the Uighurs) have been widely remarked on and should have their own article. The question is whether this particular detainee is notable. The article does not assert sufficient notability for this detainee to justify a keep, in my opinion. On the other hand, there are certainly less significant articles that have been kept. --JChap 16:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reply. -- Geo Swan 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soujah Movement

I added discussion to Talk:Sister Souljah moment per your request. The changes made a lot of sense to me. If you think otherwise, wiki away. Cheers - Abisai 00:53, 15 June 2006

Wikistress

You seem to be suffering a case of the above. I have looked at the talk pages for Big Brother and the ACIM articles and I understand where you're coming from, but if your stress levels get too high it's better to back off and come back to the article in a week. It will still be there. JChap 11:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh MY! It sounds Wiki--icked! :) Do you have a link? About my stress, though, I really don't have much, imho. However, a second point of view should always be heeded. I don't take offense by the suggestion, and am accustomed to others thinking that I work too hard. I am still quite unfamilar with the virtual politico-demographics per how the word "encyclopedia" is defined here. But I am postive that if I picked up a copy of Britannica that if it mentioned the show at all it wouldn't be anything like a list of un-notable people with a scorecard on their <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=sex onmouseover="return (window.status='sex');" onmouseout="window.status=;">sex</a>ual antics. The page comes across to me like an advertisement more than anything else. Anyhow, per the ACIM, some of those articles are okay, but the person whom is writing most of them should be concentrating more on finding reputible sources for the central book than spreading bias subtopics which haven't anything to do with the articles they are attached to. I would change that opinion if some reputible sources could be found in the first place. In his own comments underneath Talk:Kenneth_Wapnick he explains his <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=auto onmouseover="return (window.status='auto');" onmouseout="window.status=;">auto</a>-biographical relationship to the article. The other editor in the meantime doesn't believe that WP:NOR original research exits. I would certainly hope he gets with the program soon. He apparently believes that because of his own attachment to the doctrine that he should be the only editor with comments on the page (his words). I assume if not unchecked, that the two of them together will eventually find or establishh a connection between 11 and ACIM. :) Either way, it matters little to me about the content one way or the other. If between the two of them they could find an article from the New York Times saying that "the existence of ACIM was due primarily to the number 11" then I would be more happy to help them learn how to use the citation tags correctly. :) Ste4k 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, but because you are an attorney (and btw I am one of those people that actually respect that profession) you might find interesting precedents in the AfD for Next Door Nikki. I don't believe that people should be swayed other than by policy, but also that precidents should be used as reasons for policy/guideline proposals. Per the specific article, I wash my hands of it. In the discussion areas the JD_UK editor basically refuses to cooperate. We reached a consensus about tense. What is under the hood are the many hours I spent cleaning up after his writing. Only the history would show any of that. I am convinced that after the season ends, whenever that will be, they will probably move on to something else regardless of what sort of shape that article is in. He spends absolutely ZERO time researching and claims that the information doesn't exist. He also claims to be getting the information from the web site, which is the only source, and that is another matter which I find to be simply incredible. No harm done, live and learn, and it takes all sorts. :) Ste4k 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

I replied to your question at Link Please be advised that there has already been a small history of "conversation tampering" regarding this area as well as others. I do have an original copy. Ste4k 11:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would like to ask you a favor if you have some time. I spent about four or five ours reading three court case files, one of which was never mentioned in the other articles. While reading them, I put together the history of the publishing and basically the story of the book from an NPOV. I am fairly certain that I understood the entire case, however, as you know, second opinions from experts are much better. Would you mind taking a look at this article as it stands alone, please? Course in Miracles (book), thank you! :)

P.S. My wikistress has lowered quite a bit. After reading the article and knowing the full truth. Ste4k 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean Missile Test (1998)

I wasn't joking. They launched a missile. It may have contained a sattelite. That isn't a rare event. If you have a reason why it is notable, I'd be glad to hear it. If you don't I'll AfD it. Wikibout-Talk to me! 23:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will sheath the proverbial sword of deletion. :) Thanks. Wikibout-Talk to me! 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to install LED lights

I changed your prod on How to install LED lights to a speedy delete as a blatant copyvio (from <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=auto onmouseover="return (window.status='auto');" onmouseout="window.status=;">auto</a>directsave.com/How_LEDs_Work.asp this page). Just thought you might want to know that I changed it. :) -- dcclark (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Civil Rights Council

I didn't create the article, and won't have any issue if it were deleted. I (like you) encountered it on RC-patrol; rather than delete tagging it, I decided to turn it into a legit stub (and remove the POV material which the article contained). In between my edit, you added the db-empty; which I removed because my edits had left behind a reasonable stub.

Regarding the notability of the organization--I have no idea. It sounds like a band of right-wing kooks to me; but that isn't by itself grounds for deletion. If you want to axe the article, I would recommend a prod or AfD; the article as it exists probably isn't a speedy candidate anymore. Again, I have no opinion as to whether it should stay or go.

Cheers,

--EngineerScotty 04:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Boggs

Hello. Just a note to say that, in cases where it's obvious that a page was created purely out of vanity, it's quite fine to use the appropriate Speedy Deletion template ( {{nn-bio}} ). You may find it quicker and easier to achieve the desired result with this tag, rather than proposing the deletion in the normal way. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may not have been aware of this procedure, but it sounds like I was wrong. Thanks for the reply. :) RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 04:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarene Prophecy

I'm going to remove the {{accuracy}} tag as I personally am satisfied with this article insomuch as it is based on one fairly reliable source and doesn't try to extrapolate beyond that source. Nice rewrite by the way.--Isotope23 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please

Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion. I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns. Ste4k 22:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion of the "believers" on that page. Maybe even less so. I don't believe they are acting in bad faith at all, but as you mentioned POV, but also a bit of "iownthispageophy". I'll look at your comments in a bit. I'd kind of like to back out of that area to let Scott hear from other editors and get a broader opinion. I think that he believes that I have targeted him rather than how much time/effort I have put into that area to clean up the page. Ste4k 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my logic/reasoning

Hi, it's me the unprofessional bored sitting at home lady again. Since you are more familiar with reasoning and logic regarding policies and so forth, would you mind checking mine to make sure that I am understanding WP documentation correctly? Keep in mind that I have only been working with WP for three or four weeks and there is a lot "stuff". :) I would sincerely appreciate it. Please see my comments at Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Referring_to_factions . And, by the way, I'll add this to my watch so please answer here or there if you would. Thanks. Ste4k 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

two things...

Before submitting this for deletion, I'd appreciate your comments. I don't want people accusing me of things that aren't true. Reason: no such book... based on: http://isbndb.com/d/person/ackerman_bruce_a/<a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=books onmouseover="return (window.status='books');" onmouseout="window.status=;">books</a>.html and comments in the discussion page, as well as reading the article which can't decide if it's a book or a paper. Article name: The Liberal State, (Ackerman) . The other matter concerns the following from the article Endeavor Academy Link and the inverted understanding of verifiability. I've put this discussion here on my watchlist. Ste4k 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost me $3, but I don't mind. :) Social justice in the liberal state -- Thanks! Ste4k 06:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

hey thanks for the help on the mac os x86 page, now lets see if it doesn't get deleted.

Thanks again --Dr. Choc 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please see

please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Wiarthurhu

Thank you for your comments, though I believe them to be an inaccurate read of the situation. I have entered a response at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu#Response_to_JChap. --Mmx1

The Destruction of ACIM

Please see the ACIM article. Ste4k has destroyed it.--Who123 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to ACIM article and other

Steak? I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the numerous kerfuffles you have gotten yourself into here and my mind has changed about that topic a few times, but let me offer you a bit of advice on the ACIM article and others' reactions to your moving large sections of it to the talk page. In a controversial article, unilateral action such as that is frowned upon pretty severely. You need to respect consensus. Note that consensus does not mean unanimity. AfD is also a consensus process and the ACIM articles that were deleted were done so by consensus, even though a few people objected to their removal. When you find yourself on the short end of the consensus, my advice is to just let it go. Don't think of these decisions as personal victories or losses. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=3615625&oldid=3615613 .

note the date. Ste4k 16:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning... Just curious, for "tone" sake, and from the opinion of a professional orator as yourself, where do you feel that my thoughts are coming across as "decisions" being personal, one way or the other? Ste4k 17:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your thoughts are decisions.. What I was trying to say (apparently not too clearly) is that you are involved in a number of disagreements where you are the only person who wants to make a certain decision when everybody else wants a different decision. I have been on the short-end of decisions like this myself on Wikipedia and believe it's best to accede gracefuly. Consensus does not mean unanimity, which is rarely achievable. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crime music deletion

Hello JChap2007,

Why do you consider the article about crime music to be deleted?

Kind regards, Thenestor

You are confusing it with grime. I cannot find any support for the article's use of the word. Even the external link you added called it "grime." JChap (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then it's my mistake, you got my permission to delete it ;)

Thenestor

ACIM

Where are we in the archiving process? Can I help?--Who123 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the older material to Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 4 and moved the material Ste4k had moved from the article to Talk:A Course in Miracles/temp, but I have not yet moved any discussion thread with posts less than a week old. I have asked for feedback about moving this material on Talk:A Course in Miracles#Archiving. Please leave a comment there. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cornuke

You might be interested in the removal of content at Bob Cornuke.C56C 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I really don't know anything about the topic. You could contact User:Jasonwatch, as this may be one of Jason Gastrich's sock puppets. JChap (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well - the article's been reworded. I must say I find the whole thing a bit rediculous since copyright laws exist to protect people's work from being sold and/or from non-creators profitting off of the works of others. Wikipedia has no such value unless I was using it to release some artist's music for free/paid download without the permission of the person. There is no way for anyone to make a profit on Wiki by extracting biographical information directly from the source - if anything it only serves to give the person who's biography it is more exposure. I guess as a lawyer you would be more concerned with things like the 'letter of the law' and I'm sure that keeps wikipedia out of trouble - but I've encountered dozens of articles on musicians with similarly extracted information. Wiki doesn't pay a staff of researchers and therefore ALL the information contributed here is extracted from other sources. One would think that more time would be spent complaining about articles that have incorrect information rather than ones with correct and useful (and referenced) data... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountainhead83 (talk • contribs)

This isn't personal and I do appreciate your contribution. The copyright thing isn't because I'm an attorney. Any experienced editor here would have told you the same thing. To clarify, information is not copyrighted but the text that the first draft of the article contained was. I appreciate the effort that you made in changing the wording. I understand that the copyright rules sometimes don't make any sense, but in the words of Fagin, "The law's a ass and the law's a bachelor." I don't like the articles with incorrect info either and we really do appreciate all contributions, especially factual referenced articles like yours. JChap (talk • contribs) 05:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM

Would you please look at the discussion page on ACIM under Introduction. It seems that whatever is written for this article, Ste4k is going to obstruct. Thanks--Who123 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Zeese‎

I noticed your Prod. I think that you might like to check out the talk page - I submitted an AfD that was overturned on appeal. Better to wait until after the elections then have another crack when he is no longer a candidate. You can also see in the AfD discussion the flak I took :-( BlueValour 03:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantidates for Office

As I was going through the AfD category, I noticed several office seekers (please see the ongoing discussion: Wikipedia:Candidates and elections). Rather than just remove the prod on all of the affected articles (as I had started to do), I would ask if you could further explain why they are up for removal, rather than expansion (especially since it is prior to the elections?). (I've added your talk page to my watch list, and looking forward to your response : ) - Jc37 14:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. The candidates I nominated do not meet WP:BIO. Generally, the holder of a state/province-wide or national office is notable enough to have an article at Wikipedia, but a candidate for such office, without more, is not. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for yours as well : )

Your response is essentially what you said in the edit summaries (pardon me, I meant in the prod box). AFter reading them, I went to WP:BIO, and read it, and this is what I found:

"The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=auto onmouseover="return (window.status='auto');" onmouseout="window.status=;">auto</a>matically be deleted."

and

"If the article doesn't make any claim of notability, you can add the {{nn-warn}} notice to the talk page of the article's creator. This lets the user know that failure to include such a claim may result in speedy deletion. Often, the author is able to add a claim, but didn't know one was required.

If there is a claim, but you feel it doesn't meet the requirements here, you may wish to explain your position to the user, before nominating it for deletion, in case they may be able to improve it (or they may need to add verification for the claim).

Generally, a personal and specific message, about your concerns about the article, on the article's talk page and/or author's talk page, is more helpful than a generic template message.

If the author fails to present any claim, you can add the {{db-bio}} tag. For a claim nobody would consider worthy use {{prod}}. For a claim you feel is insufficient, but others may accept, use {{AFD}}."

Based on this, I wouldn't think that one would immediately use prod on these articles, but if you feel I am misreading this somehow, please enlighten me : )

- Jc37 00:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is a reasonable one. I had nominated some candidate articles in AfD, but an administrator commented that candidates were obviously non-notable and they should all be deleted. I decided to experiment with {{prod}}s. As someone felt that these articles were worth keeping, this was obviously wrong on my part. I should have just nominated them for AfD. The reason I didn't further inquire about the articles is that they seemed to already contain the relevant information on the candidates and were still non-notable (in my opinion). Generally, I think the 100 years test is a good rule of thumb. People 100 years from now are likely to still have an interest in officeholders, but not in unsuccessful candidates. Topics with only passing interest should be on Wikinews. Articles on candidates and articles that focus on campaigns should go on the Campaigns Wikia. JChap (talk • contribs) 14:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too tangled in a discussion where I wasn't invited, but I thought your use of prod was good. I've left it in place for at least one candidate with whom I agree that the article is too minor to be worth keeping. And I suggested that you consider redirects, which are immediate, if you don't want to wait for a prod. (In other words, prods are good because (a) they avoid AfDs, potentially, and (b) you may even be given a good reason to keep the article, in which case a wasted AfD is avoided altogether).

As for the "100 years test", is this a wikipedia policy? If so, would you provide a link to it? (My google search came up empty.) Thanks. John Broughton 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not to get too tangled in a discussion where I wasn't invited" - The more the merrier (well I wish it was that way always in WP, but...lol)

Anyway, I don't think that cantidates for US senate races, especially for the "larger" political parties would be considered non-notable. There are many current events on WP that the 100 year rule would wipe out (possibly wikipedia itself : ) We won't even consider asking how many people know who the vice president of the US was 10 years ago, much less 100 years ago : )

Given that you (JChap) consider the point a reasonable one, I'll remove the prod and add Template:activepol to the talk pages of the more notable ones. The rest should probably get a merge notice (to the appropriate election page). Feel free to AfD (or prod) any that you feel appropriate, obviously. - Jc37 01:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion versus redirect for minor candidates?

You've just added proposed deletion notices to a bunch of articles about failed (and minor?) candidate. Have you considered just putting redirects on these articles instead? That approach seems to be suggested by the (admittedly proposed) policy on candidates and elections. It has the advantage that unlike a delete, the text is easily available should it be needed. Such text would be useful, for example, when no one has moved relevant text to an existing campaign article before the delete occurs. (Consider John Orman: he was a candidate in the Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006, but that campaign article currently has nothing about Orman in it.) John Broughton 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the article. Orman would seem to be a footnote and nothing more in this race (He thought about running and decided not to in 2005) and merit a sentence or two in the article, at most. I will therefore move some of the text to Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 before submitting this to AfD. I have also prodded some current candidates under the usual hesacandidateforsenatornotasenatorwp:notanelectionguide rationale, but would consider protected redirects for these (so partisans couldn't recreate them) and for the minor/failed candidates as well. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of merging and redirecting (or at least redirecting). That way, the discussion page and the history of the article are not lost. It might prove particularly useful in the event that the candidate does run again or gain notability in the future.--GregRM 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on my filiing requesting Arbitration

Please see your comments made earlier on my filing requesting arbitration. [2] Please also see my remarks to Will Beback concerning that matter on my talk page. [3]. Your statements appear to me to be an attempt to obstruct and/or divert attention away from a legitmate complaint. I am certain that this is not how you intended them to appear. Please feel free to contact me in that regard on my talk page. Thanks. Ste4k 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to post comments here. That was my comment. My statements were an attempt to divert you from getting your hat handed to you in the RfArb, which is looking more and more likely. You're smart and hard-working, but you really need to be less confrontational. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM & EA

User:Antireconciler and I have been working on these articles. The EA article seems complete.

We have done some work on the ACIM article. I had some reference <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=books onmouseover="return (window.status='books');" onmouseout="window.status=;">books</a>. In order to proceed with the article, I ordered a few more and they just arrived. I will begin reading and highlighting. I think this article depends on the reference <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=books onmouseover="return (window.status='books');" onmouseout="window.status=;">books</a>. Are you still interested in working on this article?—Who123 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested, but RL is interfering. I couldn't find "The Complete Story of the Course" locally and have ordered it. I also obtained a copy of the Course itself, but have looked at it and have a few refs like The Skeptic's Dictionary that have short excerpts on the Course itself. I hope to begin expanding the history section within a week. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=books onmouseover="return (window.status='books');" onmouseout="window.status=;">books</a> (that I know of) for the history of ACIM are Wapnick, Miller, and Skutch. Hope this helps.—Who123 03:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaysreal

I just realised that the section about Gaysreal was taklen out along with the Wkiality section. This was on even before the July 31 show aired. What are we trying to prove here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dein Übermensch (talk • contribs)

I believe you are referring to The Colbert Report article. As I haven't deleted anything from that article I don't know who "we" are or what anybody is trying to prove. As a viewer of the Colbert Report, however, I can note that "Gaysrael" was mentioned, what, once? It seems a one-off joke, much like Wikiality. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiality

An interesting compromise. I'd suggest you develop it into an essay -- tack on a paragraph about its application for editors (i.e., the pitfalls it implies, the critical importance of WP:V and WP:CITE), and fix some of the syntactical references -- part of it says Colbert "referred to this article", but as the content has been moved, it should be changed to say which article he is referring to. This could be a thing of value to editors if it's built right. JDoorj a m Talk 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, apparently Cyde disagreed. JDoorj a m Talk 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to look at this again when I got home from work, but now it appears it has been deleted. My main goal was to stop the insertion of this irrelevancy into the The Colbert Report article. Oh well, if the bit had been funnier, I might be tempted to fight for its inclusion in WP space. <sigh> Not Colbert's best work. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACIM

Hi. I and another have worked on the EA article. Will Beback took a look and it seems to be in good shape now.

I seem to be the only one still working on the ACIM article. I have been working on content, organization, and citation. I have used a combination of the primary and secondary sources. I wonder if I have used too many primary references. It is still in progress. Would you mind taking a look at what I have done so far and making suggestions? I am feeling a bit loss as I am not sure that I am moving in the right direction particularly with the primary source (ACIM). Thanks—Who123 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued interest in the ACIM article. I am still reading the reference <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=books onmouseover="return (window.status='books');" onmouseout="window.status=;">books</a> I ordered. At the moment I do not seem to have much time. I would like to read your recent edits as soon as I do get time. The one thing that I did notice is the additional tag that refers to the talk section but there is nothing in the talk section. Will add it.—Who123 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks for the advice....! I appreciate it.

Dariankovacs 02:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hovind and Florida law

I agree with you that the section on the law reads like WP:OR, but since he calls himself Dr. Dino and has a weboage called that, Florida law[4] in relation to his lack of <a class=l href=http://webmaxsearch.com?qq=education onmouseover="return (window.status='education');" onmouseout="window.status=;">education</a> should have a place in the article. CaliEd 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iff the FL authorities take action against him, then it becomes relevant. But not until. JChap T/E 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koren bio

Hi and thanks for the welcome. Of course, I've actually been here all along, but nameless. Lately, landing on rough entries on misconduct and academic scandals I recognized that affair from the past and from more recent coverage, too. I thought that the selective treatment, especially in the brief biography, did not reflect the complexity of the issue at all. I responded to you about this in Koren's discussion area. It seems to me that the guidelines correctly choose to do no harm in such cases. After I located the MacLean's article, I looked around briefly and saw references to European approval of the drug in question and doubts about Olivieri, too: her science and her behavior. In short, hard to sort out and I think irresponsible to leave as is. Any article will be selective I suppose, but this seemed extreme and I wondered about vindictiveness in light of the viscious tones of that scandal. Did I over-react in your opinion? Ciche 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report and Wikiality

Will you agree to mediation?

I'd like to take a vote on this, but if not, Mediation on the issue is acceptable. Ariginal

Thanks for your message. Before doing either on those, let's discuss whether this should be included in the article based on the merits on the article's talk page. Read the previous conversation carefully and make your points. I'll consider them and reply in a new section at the bottom. If we cannot manage to reach agreement, then going to MedCab may be an option. JChap2007 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truths

I know I nommed this article for deletion, but Dmoss did a bit of work on it (and got rid of all the weird stuff) and I've done some after Dmoss did his bit and it looks a good bit better now (it's still far from perfect). So, could you take a look at it? Note, I'm not asking you to change your vote per se, just asking you to take a second look. Thanks. Jim62sch 22:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be the nicest message under that title that has ever appeared on a talk page. JChap2007 11:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kaplan on Wikipedia

Lee Kaplan comes up consistently numbers one and two on google for that name and results in over 47,000 hits for this individual. The claims made by JChap and others are not truthful and must be related to political considerations. The Ytmd post was a smear website calling Mr.Kaplan a racial slur and vulgar names. This man is widely read worldwide and deserves his place in Wikipedia without being smeared by political opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.78.90 (talk • contribs)

Well, my reason to delete was that it was a copyvio and it did not relate to notability. I have never seen the YTMND, as I don't particularly care for them. I assume from the fact that the article is a cut-and-paste from FrontPageMag.com that he is a conservative but don't really have an opinion on that one way or the other. JChap2007 06:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should let you know that this unsigned comment was added by someone claiming to be Lee Kaplan himself. If he wants to keep the article, it may reek of vanity now. Where is his mention in reliable sources? I couldn't find any. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments from him above and below are confusing because my concerns right now relate to the copyvio, not notability. I will try to find WP:RS as well. JChap2007 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WealthTrust AfD

Hello, the AfD for WealthTrust you voted on is currently under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 21. Can you stop by and clarify your position, especially on WP:CORP? Thanks ~ trialsanderrors 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Reliable sources on Lee Kaplan

The sources in the Lee Kaplan are Mr. Kaplan's current employers as a journalist including his radio show on k-talk.com every Tuesday night. You can't get more reliable than that. YOu obviously know nothig about the man. You should withdraw your request for deletion not you have been informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.78.90 (talk • contribs)

That's not my objection (and I wasn't the person who nominated the article). My objection is that the article is a copyright violation. It is a copy from FrontPageMag.com. If it is changed so it ceases to be a copyright violation, I will reconsider. Also, please remember to sign you talk page with four ~. Best, JChap2007 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Workers Union

Hi JChap2007, thanks for taking the time to re-write this article. It certainly is a good start and an improvement off when it was first nominated. I'm sure its' going to be much appreciated in the community. Luke 03:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the comment. JChap2007 03:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving the article with a great rewrite! - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its good that you saved the article from getting deleted. I changed my vote to keep. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 08:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Delete it, it was intended to sort music pages by company rather than alphabetically, but no one seems to have gone along with it.

A Course in Miracles

Thanks for the note. I thought I should just make the suggestion first, since it seems to be a contentious article. I'll go back and see what changes I can make myself. Not a dog 16:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the history. I can't even recall how I stumbled upon this page, probably one of my "random article" hits. I might just end up dropping it, becuase i don't want to get caught up in some kind of edit war. Not a dog 02:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solid edits you recently made, btw. Improved the article. Not a dog 02:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this insinuation by Who123 what you meant about there being a history with this article [5]? Not a dog 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be it. JChap2007 13:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now accused of being a sockpuppet for Ste4k. [6]. Not a dog 14:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This just gets weirder and weirder. You're obviously not. Just ignore it, or I'll join you in a check-user request if you feel the need to clear your name. JChap2007 17:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it obvious? At first Not a dog acted as if they were a new editor and unsure of themselves. Since they joined on August 15, 2006 they have made between 250 and 500 edits. Their knowledge of WP policies and guidelines shown at Talk:A Course in Miracles appears to far exceed that of a new editor. While it is unknown if they are the same person as Ste4k, they do not appear to me to be new.—Who123 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious because NAD is far more rational than Ste4k. I guess I'm not seeing the extensive, definitively non-n00bie knowledge of policy and guidelines you are. Could you provide diffs? JChap2007 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: she never provided diffs. JChap2007 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]