User talk:ObiterDicta/Archive 3

Washing Post Microtargeting

Hi there you can check the microtargeting article now.

Got it. Thanks. JChap2007 02:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks; _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute

Responding shortly on my talk page. GRBerry 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a deletionist of non-accredited schools[1]? Then why do I spend so much time cleaning up notable ones at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and start articles for unaccredited Christian schools like California Biblical University and Seminary, California Graduate School of Theology, California Pacific School of Theology? I believe you bought into Alansohn false personal attacks against me. I invite you to review every single school at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning to see my clean ups for notable unaccredited places. Why would a deletionist spend so much time editing and reverting vandalism? Arbusto 08:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am intentionally forking this question from the existing discussion on my talk page, which seems to be headed downhill. It feels to me that the current content dispute (independent of the AFD nominations and notability discussion) is whether the section on accreditation is NPOV. Do you think it would help if (assuming agreement from both of the primary disputants), we got each of them to write on the talk page their perfect NPOV version of that section, then opened a request for comment on the RfC pages for articles? If so, which RFC page(s) should it be listed on? What comes to my mind are Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy and trade. GRBerry 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RfC could be useful. I would go with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law and sex, as the specific issue is accreditation, which is a quasi-legal process. Religion is only implicated here because the school is a seminary. JChap2007 17:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perieoci

does an incorrect spelling merit a redirect???? ^{--Eggman64 04:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

When it is a likely one, in my opinion. They are pretty common and redirects are cheap. Feel free to delete it if you want, though. JChap2007 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm if it stays....so what the hell!^{--Eggman64 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Deprod comment on Ghulam Ahmad Ashai

I've deprodded because there are reasonable clues to his pre-internet notability, but it's still short of demonstrably meeting WP:BIO. What do you think? In cases like this, I'm an eventualist :) --Mereda 08:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deprodding. I'm taking out the claim that he founded the Kashmiri Reading Room, because this is not in the cited source. I'm not sure that the two people are the same, but I agree we should probably have an article on the founder of a university

My comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I liked your merger idea. There are quite a few of these articles. I contacted several editors who work a lot on UU articles a day or so ago to see if we could do something along the same lines (although I did not know about that list). Only one has responded so far. I nom'ed a few of (what I thought were) the cruftier articles for deletion, but there are a lot more that probably don't rate their own articles. I'm not sure how much coverage "Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" should have. JChap2007 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! Not being a UU and not having a lot of interest in these articles, I wasn't really volunteering to do the leg work. I found the Affiliate article from a link in the UUETA article. You might just try merging some of these yourself and seeing if a redirect sticks or gets reverted. At this point its up to you though since the various AfDs are already in motion. Good luck, -MrFizyx 21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've responded on my talk. Please watch there if you want to continue that thread. Thanks, -MrFizyx 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UUA affiliate organization

Hey JChap, I think that we should discuss the fate of all the UUA affiliate organizations at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations. One, centralized discussion is more useful to the Encyclopedia than many small discussions at individual AfD artciles. I'd appreciate your thoughts on these articles there. HellaNorCal 03:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you efforts on Neil Bush

However, I feel there will be no reason or compromise from a few of the individuals involved. I do not know what next step would be. If you have a suggestion, I would be happy to know.

Thank you again on your effort. Your comments put into words some ideas I could not explain.

Schlotzsman 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Cabal may be an appropriate next step. I'll recommend this at Talk: Neil Bush. JChap2007 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

No, my edit probably even leans toward your deletion. i was trying to clean up a large category called Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives, and put the losers into a new category Former Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives. We could easily have several thousand living persons bio pages if the notability criteria were havinng run for congress. CApitol3 13:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Substubs about Unitarian Universalist Association Districts

Kudos for an well presented nomination. - 152.91.9.144 07:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help!

Thank you for the help on my Herbert Schildt article. It's my first contribution to Wikipedia, other than minor corrections/additions. I do not want to libel Schildt in any way - I have no problem with the criticisms being removed. I have re-written a couple of them very specifically with quotations from his books citing the book and page numbers to provide specific examples. I hope these are acceptable.

I restored the paragraph about his books being historically important, because -- although he is still writing -- his impact on computer science is mostly from the MS-DOS era of the late 80s/early 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott1329m (talk • contribs)

There's no problem with criticisms, but they have to be cited (as should all information, ideally). So feel free to put them back in, with citation. My only issue with them was that they did not have citations, which is especially important because he is living. Reading his books and offering your own interpretation would probably be original research, which we try not to include in articles here. The best approach is to quote reviews or comments by third parties that are critical of his books. JChap2007 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense? Db-nonsense? Nonsense!

I think you'll find the two are equivalent. {{nonsense}} is a redirect to {{db-nonsense}}. Tonywalton | Talk 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, but when you add {{nonsense}} to a page, it doesn't produce the nice pink box, or at least it did not on that particular page (whatever it was...) JChap2007 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. It works for me. Maybe I made a typo like {nonsense}} or {{nonsense} or {{nonsense]] or something. Tonywalton | Talk 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it worked for me in my sandbox too. Weird. JChap2007 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spam-notice

You recently blanked {{spam-notice}}. I'm assuming it was an accident, but what were you trying to do? Oh and also before when I clicked a link to it while it was empty it had the "there is no such page" message, but was blue-linked and had the history tab. Weird --WikiSlasher 23:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had put it on a user's page while npping. I then went to edit the template as it appeared on the user's page, but the edit window took me to the template page. I thought I had caught myself and self-reverted. Sorry and thanks for cleaning up after me—I can assure you it was foolishness and not malice! JChap2007 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK --WikiSlasher 00:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General

You may want to reconsider your vote. What you say is more inline with a merge vote than a delete vote. --Cat out 20:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the above-referenced AfD's project page. JChap2007 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re replied. A 'delete' means material should not be used in any article. Merge means it should be moved elsewhere. Big difference. --Cat out 21:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think the material should be moved elsewhere, as I've consistently made clear in that AfD, but rather should not appear in any article because it is original research. I have to confess that I'm mystified by why you think my reasoning would suggest a merge. JChap2007 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning link removal on A Course in Miracles

I still don't understand why I can't add my links. I read the page. I also saw the links already on the page I added mine to... who decided THOSE were okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachonlylove (talk • contribs)

Well, generally, the number of external links in an article should be kept to a minimum. This suggests including only the most relevant links. Specifically, you may want to look at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided number 13. I hope this clears things up for you. Best, JChap2007 03:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's University Chess Club

Seeing as I was the original nominator, I think that it would be best if you re-nominated the article. Andy Saund e rs 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JChap2007 01:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Models

Say we know some items of the Model. In this example:

Annual Gross Rent, first year
Vacancy and Collection factor
Operating Expenses, first year
Annual % change in rent
Annual % change in expenses
Loan to Value ratio
Stated Annual Interest rate
Loan Term (years)
Percent of price in improvements
CPI Annual Increase
After tax, Real Discount rate
Cap Rate assumed at date of sale
Transaction costs as % of sales price
Cap Rate at Purchase
Income tax rate (Corporate) (Canada)
Capital Gains tax rate (Canada)
Property Valuation
Loan Amount
Equity Required
Mortgage Loan Constant

DECISION ANALYSIS FACTORS: years 0 through 11

Real Cash Flow to Owner
Present Value of Real Cash Flow
NPV of Real Cash Flow:
After Tax Real Internal Rate of Return:

PROFORMA INCOME STATEMENT: years 0 through 11

Annual Gross Rental Income
Vacancy and Collection Losses
Effective Rental
Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income
Interest Expense
Depreciation (cost recovery)
Taxable Income
Income Tax Liability
Net Income After Tax

PROFORMA CASH FLOW STATEMENT: years 0 through 11

Annual Gross Rental Income
Vacancy and Collection Loses
Effective Rental
Operating Expenses
Net Operating Income
Debt Service
Income Tax Liability
Equity Dividend (cash to owner)
Down Payment/Reversion
Total Cash Flow to Owner
Purchasing Power Adjustment
Real Cash Flow to Owner

MORTGAGE LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE: years 0 through 11

Balance Owed, beginning of year
Annual Mortgage Payment
Interest Portion of Payment
Amortization of principal
Balance Owed, end of year

ANALYSIS OF REVERSION ON SALE:

Net Operating Income Projected, Year After Sale (Year 11)
Cap Rate At Sale Date
Capitalized Value (Sale Price)
Transaction Cost
Net Sales Price
Book Value At Sales Date (cost-dep)
Capital Gain ( Net Price - BV)
Capital Gains Tax
Mortgage Balance Owed
Reversion in nominal dollars to owner at sales date

What is the next step?

Replied at the reference desk. JChap2007 21:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, cannot find the question on the reference desk. I assume you are trying to model expected after-tax return from rental real estate. You would then need to determine which of those factors were relevant to determining this and build an equation showing how each of those factors relates to expected return

I moved the question to the Math Ref Desk. Please help. Thnx. --Foundby 03:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modest proposal

You made several changes to A Modest Proposal recently, including the Modern usage/references section. Edit summary: "Deleting this section per the policy on neologisms and because I found numerous counterexamples)" I have a couple concerns with removal of this section. Were your counter-examples simply traditional usages of the term? A counter-example would really need to be an essay decrying the phrases use in a non-satirical manner, and if such an essay is a reliable source, then I think it would benefit the article to show both sides of this discussion. (Just the fact that such an essay might be written is evidence that the modern use occurs.)

The text is widely used in American English courses, so that portion of the removed section should remain at a minimum. I'm sure I can track down textbooks if this is the point you are challenging.
The new use of the phrase isn't really a neologism--it is more a bastardization of the "real" meaning and is a symptom of misunderstanding the source material. In my brief search, I quickly found a usage very similar to the use described in the article: A modest proposal to end spam.

I'll be off of wikipedia over the Christmas holiday, but I look forward to seeing your response when I return. Thanks, Dan Slotman 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The problem with the removed text was that it presented one usage as the predominant modern one, when it seems to be used in several different ways, so that the section was incorrect. I did some looking and was trying to find a source that discussed the usage and not just examples of usage, to keep away from the synthesis problem. I removed the information, as it's better to have nothing than to have incorrect or misleading text, until I could find an article that discussed the use of the term.

I'm not disputing that it has modern usage (obviously), but (as I can see my message failed to make clear) that the usage claimed by the article seemed to be one of many usages. I could have added the other usages, but at this time it is unclear to me which one is predominant. My citation to WP:NEO was not intended to claim that the term itself is a neologism (it obviously is not), but more to assert that we should get sources that actually discuss the usage of the term, not merely give examples of it, as discussed in that essay/guideline.

At the present time, what the two of us seem to have found is differing examples of usage of the term. To write on this, I would suggest we find something that explicitly discussed how the term is used in modern times, so we could be accurate. We should be able to do this and still meet the deadline. Cheers, JChap2007 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Straw poll==

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

All I ask is that you and others look at this for what it is. It is real, it meets the criteria for inclusion and I do not use puppets or fake profiles anywhere on earth. New additions to support the case will be forthcoming each day.

I am sober for over 12 years by the grace of God. I am a dad. I play guitar. I have a band with famous people that wanted to play with me. The band is taking off. I am grateful. The people on CLEAR CHANNEL and a wonderful fan, have stepped forward and will give me links to put up, because I do not know how to do this computer thing very well. I do not like "MySpace" and I do not like trying to toot my own horn. I do, however, believe in the guy that said "you are the light of the world."

Thanks for you input and hard work here. I pray this place will be able to stem the tide of vandals that destroy your good works.

Lee Nysted 1-21-07http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee, congratulations on your sobriety and being a dad. I did not think that The Lee Nysted Experience met the criteria for inclusion because (1) the session musicians were not "members of the band" as that term is used in WP:MUSIC and (2) the sources provided were either trivial mentions rather than full articles or not from independent, reliable sources. You seem to believe that the article is being deleted because of a campaign on MySpace. I personally do not spend any time on MySpace. The other editors participating in the AfD were established editors, so I doubt they were part of any MySpace campaign either.

Best wishes for your musical career, JChap2007 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JChap thank you for your message. I am sorry I have been slow to get back to you. I am very new at this, and confused, so still finding my way around. I tried to email you but it keeps telling me I am not logged in which I am. I would like to email you direct, with all the information that you have asked for. Meanwhile you will find quite a few of the reviews of PaGaian Cosmology at my website [2] in "articles". You can also contact me through the site.

Note that the talk page you left the message on for me is the talk page of the person who made the Wiki entry - not mine. All that is on my talk page ... what I think is my talk page (my partner helped me with finding it), is my initial objection to deletion.

Your help is much appreciated. Regards Glenys LivingstonePagaian 09:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

message from Dr. Livingstone

Hi JChap I hope you see my message just above here ... I missed putting in a headline. You may contact me direct through my website [3] Dr. Glenys LivingstonePagaian 09:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Keller court martial deletion review

Hi JChap2007, Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I have attempted to answer your points here [4]. regards Abu ali 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for advice JChap. I have been confused about appropriate procedure. I will go to the page where I posted my detailed response and delete those site references, because I believe it was inappropriate - not kosher - for me to put them there.Pagaian 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User: Hitler, Adolf

Yes, I reverted his edit assuming it would be vandalism, and was about to block him when another admin beat me to it. Thanks for actually checking the accuracy of the article. Academic Challenger 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Money Money Money" editing

Very well. I will let that other editor have his way.

I will say this, though. Money, Money, Money and The Marching Song of the Covert Battalions do have unreliable narrators, and no amount of browbeating is going to change that. Consensus is important, but a consensual untruth is still an untruth.

Take care.

Marquis de Barrabas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.152.28.111 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As the article does not claim to be an exhaustive listing of songs with unreliable narrators, I fail to see how omission of that song from the list amounts to an untruth. It's good that you decided to stop edit warring, though. JChap2007 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I found this comment of yours in the History page

since 89.152.28.111 rescinded his threats to delete all but the fully sourced portion of the article [...]

Well, here are my "threats":

Or, I might turn this on you and start deleting every song, book or film whose presence in the list is not backed by an authoritative source. But of course I won't do that, even if I am less than convinced about the pertinence of many of the examples. Why? Because I am actually capable of conceiving that, even if I don't see how this or that movie belongs in the list, maybe the person who added it to the list was more perceptive than I am.

I have too much respect for the true Wikipedia contributors to delete their work on a whim. I made this perfectly clear, as anyone who reads past the first sentence of my posts can testify.

Thank you.

Marquis de Barrabas

--89.152.28.78 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe I was referring to this little gem, in which you write:

Tell you what, I am going to insert the "Money, Money, Money" bit again. If you delete it, I will do what you've been doing so far; I am going to remove from the main body of the article any examples of unreliable narrators which are not backed up by at least one authoritative, unambiguous source. So if you plan on continuing on your little crusade, start digging up those references.[emphasis in your original]

Not only was that a threat to delete legitimate content, but was a misrepresentation of what Calbaer had been doing: xe had only objected to one song that you had edit warred to insert, even though both Calbaer and I had questioned whether it belonged. Of course, that was two months ago, already, so I can't be sure. In other words, drop the stick. Now, step away from the horse carcass.

I commend you, though, for refraining from threats to delete content in the particular post you reference above. Please similarly refrain in 100% of your talk page posts in the future. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of an article you commented on

This AfD is currently on deletion review. You commented in a prior review on the same article. ~ trialsanderrors 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up which probably isn't that relevant to the discussion, I polled four of my Canadian friends (1 BC, 1 Alb, 2 Ont) if they know Rachel Marsden. Three came back with "swim coach" (active recollection), one didn't know who she was. So I have to assume that there is at least some modicum of interest in the case, and readers have come to expect Wikipedia to be the first port of call for this kind of coverage, especially since the original news archive is buried behind paywalls. Now if you google for marsden donnelly, the first hit you get is to the deletion review (until two days ago it was ArbCom case). Not exactly a good state of affairs, and not one that is about to change under the current mood. Our responsibility towards Marsden, Donnelly, etc., is that we don't portrait them unduly negative (meaning not more negative that the median sentiment expressed in the totality of sources), but beyond that, our responsibility is towards our readers who expect to find a well-written, informative article on the case, and not lengthy, acronym-riddled debate about Wikipedia policies. ~ trialsanderrors 18:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since length of the article was a major issue (or in fact splitting the case over two articles), I wonder if we should include a question on absolute length, and length in relation to the richness of the sources or the impact of the case? ~ trialsanderrors 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom doesn't usually rule on content (and they may be sorry they did here), but we could ask. I'll be off the computer for a while, but will get back on later tonight. JChap2007 00:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more thinking in terms of: Does length of an article constitute undue weight if it is unduly long compared to the volume of source material, or compared to the perceived social impact? ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you still want to pursue asking ArbCom for a clarification? I just wanted to say that I whatever quibbles I have with the current set of questions, the quibbles are minor and I don't want to be holding anything back. However, nor do I have the energy to push anything forward right now. It's your call. Take care, Kla'quot 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have both sides submit a single list of questions, but that does not seem to be happening. Either you or T&E can submit this (or any part of it) as an alternative to Sam's question if you want. JChap2007 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I just don't have the energy (at least not yet) for another round. You may actually be the best person to ask these questions. You are one of the few neutral parties, and efforts by neutral parties are often well-received. Thank you again for your peacemaking efforts. Kla'quot 08:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Course in Miracles

Just to let you know that the information contained in my edits are factual and not assumptions or opinions, as I was one of the legal team that won the lawsuit freeing the Course in Miracles for over 8 years. And you are incorrect when you say that I cannot state the fact the Jesus is the Author of A Course in Miracles, since the scribe herself said so in different citations of her writings, such writings which were introduced into court as evidence. And therefore, the concepts of the work should correctly be stated as coming from the Author Himself, as if He were quoting from any other author's work.I will continue to edit this page to corrrect the misstatements and errors of fact that others opposed to ACIM attempt to publish. EVERYTHING THAT I SAID IN MY EDITS IS VERIFIABLE. in peace, Carol J. "Katie" Forbes, J.D.Katieforbes 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copied to Talk:A Course in Miracles

By all means, rewrite or delete all of what is taxed as you wish. Data-mining reveals all.

bad link on your front page

Esquire OD, you've got a bad link on your user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/JChap2007

you probably meant this (since your screen name change) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta

Best,

--GordonWatts 04:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (Pro-Se, hey, we get by too, lol...)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. You can also click on "e-mail this user" in the box to the left. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 05:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome; I knew about the "e-mail this user" link, but I didn't mention it; Simply an Ockham's Razor omission on my part.--GordonWatts 05:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"fact" tag

Hi, it's best not to subst this tag, or most of the cleanup tags. For more details see WP:SUBST. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 17:06 25 February 2007 (GMT).

Gawd. I've been here a year and still feel like a n00b. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though you supported some action against me when I feel that I have not violated Wikipedia policy (maybe annoyed a few people, I concede), still, I am not seeking the action against you. Nonetheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 08:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted a statement. You may be confused as to my involvement with you. I had never edited Terri Schiavo before four days ago and I don't believe we disagreed on my edit. I don't believe I encountered you until I saw the discussion on the Community Noticeboard. Merely making comments there would not subject one to ArbCom sanctions.ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your statement, and I thanked you for that limited support for RfArbCom involvement. Also, please know that I was not seeking action against you (even though I think you misrepresented my contributions when opining on the Community noticeboard) "Merely making comments there would not subject one to ArbCom sanctions" Of course -I was merely notifying you, like I did when I notified all participants (and certified by the "Certificate of Service") when I petitioned the Fla Supreme Court. Actually, I do seek action against some others, because I don't like the idea that they might provoke or harass others like they did me.--GordonWatts 04:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I said ArbCom was an appropriate venue. The arbitrators don't have to take your case though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, you are correct; I ran into the same problem with Florida' High court. I lost a motion for rehearing on a slim 4-3 decline here. Jeb Bush did better than me -initially -as he got a hearing and a lot of press, but eventually he was defeated too. At that point, he did not do as well as me. He lost his rehearing before the same panel by a 7-0 shutout! In the end, I got closer to winning the Schiavo case than he did -but we both lost, you know?--GordonWatts 06:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I feel stupid! You might be right about one of the sanctions having consensus support, but not all 4. Count the votes, big dog!--GordonWatts 07:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

i didn't know that it was not acceptable to edit your own biog - there were some inaccuracies and still are. what do I do about them. I am not the daughter of Diana Churchill - as a result not nearly as illustrious as this site makes me sound.

how do I correct this?

Laura Sandys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.113.131 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would strongly urge you to discuss the inaccuracies on Talk:Laura Sandys. I will fix the references to you being the daughter of Diana Churchill. Should I assume you are Mr. Duncan Sandys's daughter? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marquisdebarrabas (unreliable narrator)

Thanks for the notification and your explanation on the page you link to. My view is that anything reliably sourced is fair game and anything not is not; in fact, I was thinking of deleting everything in the list without a source. The list is meant to be helpful rather than exhaustive, and it might help circumvent whining if everything were reliably sourced. Maybe some day.... Calbaer 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: register vs richard bennett

I wasn't completely seriously suggesting that Richard Bennett had written it; but I was serious in asking how we knew that he hadn't. We still don't to be honest; Richard is highly motivated to say anything in this article (he probably would be in a position to make money if NN is canned and QOS comes to the fore; these accusations of everyone being a paid shill is presumably just him assuming stuff about everyone else).WolfKeeper 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, Richard Bennett getting stuff into 'the press' wouldn't be likely, but Richard Bennett was actually interviewed by the Register a while back (google it you should find it), and by the sound of it Orlowski reads Richard Bennett's god-for-saken blog. And there was Richards name at the bottom of the article. Last year Richard had previously actually tried to justify several edits based on quoting himself in the Register interview. I just repeatedly removed them, eventually he stopped- you just have to shake your head that Richard Bennett thinks he can get away with the kind of things that he pulls. Anyway, Orlowski's brand of 'journalism' isn't exactly NPOV; actually most of it is highly biased, there's serious questions as to whether it's a reliable source, I tend towards not, and far more so when Richard Bennett is quoting from an article with his name at the bottom.WolfKeeper 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any strong opinions on either Orlowski or NN, to be perfectly honest. At times it seems like I'm the only one who doesn't. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi, I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Livingstone I presume?

Hello there I am not sure how this confusion occured but I am not Glenys Livingstone as your letter on my messages seems to indicate that you have presumed. I am a user of her book and work. Thanks Laura-Doe waw 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Moorman and Badge man

You proposed merging Mary Moorman with Badge man. I disagree. She is mildly famous as a witness to the assassination. There is quite a bit of information on her on the Internet. She made statements to the FBI and others about it. She was played by Sally Nystuen in the movie JFK. Her photograph is one of very, very few, possibly the only, image of JFK being shot besides the Zapruder film. Just looking at the External Links on her page shows she is someone of interest. She is of interest for more than just Badge man, the John F. Kennedy assassination page has a link to her. Unless you object, I plan to remove the merge tags. Fanra 03:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no objection. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable converts to Christianity

Hey, thanks for trying to resolve the issue with the entry, but Demong is technically right: the sources we have at hand do not back up this assertion. Dylan's conversion has some pretty clear sources to back it up, but it seems that if he really has left Christianity, he chose to do so in a much quieter way. We know of his involvement in several Jewish groups, but this doesn't prove much- primarily because the sources at hand consider his involvement with these groups as being from a 'Christian standpoint'. I'm always willing to clarify, and I've supported the addition of notes which explain Dylan's status, but Demong seems to have a point- these edits aren't supported by the sources. Once we have sources which clarify his return to Judaism, such edits will be more appropriate. --C.Logan 03:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact citations for conversion for Dylan are nothing more than "flakey." Pertinent: Dylan was born and raised Jewish. Pertinent: There is no information that Dylan has had anything to do with Christianity in a couple of decades. Pertinent: point of view pushing is rampant at List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 07:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. The Encyclopedia Britannica article cited after Dylan's entry in the list confirms the widely-accepted view on this: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows. ... By 1982, when Dylan was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame, his open zeal for Christianity was waning." Or, as the 1997 New York Times piece cited in our Bob Dylan article says, "He embraced born-again Christianity and then returned to Judaism. ... Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion." So there you have it. "Flakey" sources like Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times giving unequivocal statements that he was once Christian, but no longer is. Or do I need to be reading something else? Keep in mind that an author trying to present a particular point of view on Dylan is probably going to be less reliable than those two. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to re-assess the Encyclopedia Britannica article as a source for Dylan's return to Judaism. You seem to be inferring that a waning of "open zeal for Christianity" is an abandonment. Be aware that it's common for people to lose their zeal in any instance- however, just because a married couple is no longer as passionate as they were at their wedding, it does not mean that they have gotten divorced. Interestingly, from a quick search, it's apparent that the article does not even mention 'Judaism', 'Jewish', or even 'Jew' at all. And even assuming that a "waning of open zeal" was a sign of abandonment, what would cause you to assume that the article intends to mean "he returned to Judaism" rather than atheism or agnosticism? The article doesn't seem to make any claims to support his return to Jewish faith.

Additionally, the second article makes the claim that he returned to Judaism, but is unspecific about the date. It's apparent that you tried to put two and two together on this one, but this isn't necessarily correct. For all we know, he could have been an atheist for 4 years before become a believing Jew again. Therefore, we should simply find a source which lists a date to coincide with the occurrence before we make as specific a note as you have. Additionally, I'd find it utterly amusing if Bus stop quietly accepted these sources, considering that he protested their validity vehemently when we used them as sources for conversion, including one of my personal favorite quotes of his, "If Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong so be it." Personally, I have no issue with the second source at all, and I feel it's relevant for the occurrence- but not the date. However, I'm not so sure about Demong's other reasons- the whole 'inflaming the debate' business. He could be right, as it seems to be all or nothing with those opposed to his inclusion- although I'm not certain what the harm is in fully explaining Dylan's situation. Thanks for your helpful edits, either way. --C.Logan 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my edit never said he returned to Judaism, simply that he abandoned Christianity. You have a valid point that "waning zeal" =/= abandonment. The New York Times piece suggests Christianity --> Judaism --> no organized religion. I think it is important in the course of informing our readers to note that he is no longer Christian and I think the Times article clearly establishes that. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; it should be noted. Unfortunately, doing so now and in the past hasn't helped the debate, but it does improve the article. --C.Logan 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Notable Converts to Christianity

I may have accidentally deleted a message of yours at Talk: List of notable converts to Christianity while reverting some vandalism. You may wish to check and repost if I have done so. The Dark 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what I did wrong coding-wise. Thanks for the correction, and for letting me know what it was I did. WikiLuddite 18:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA

As a general rule I agree polls are bad, and specifically I don’t think in this instance it is needed, because I believe the links should be removed without discussion as they are bootleg. Perhaps I was hasty in restoring the poll, I saw an edit war developing over these YouTube videos and was happy to see consensus established by any means

I will remove it. I was bold but trigger happy. --Drappel 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove my posts on a talk page again. It is not appropriate behaviour. BirdHunters 01:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (and Drappel) were simply removing a misguided poll. We haven't even discussed the issue, and a poll could not validate linking to copyright violations anyway because polling is not the way descisions are made and linking to copyvios is simply unacceptable. (Please read the links I provided you.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration involving yourself has recently been filed. Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bus stop and make any statement you believe appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

ObiterDicta, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius  talk 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi ObiterDicta, thanks for your kind comments in my RfA, which passed unopposed. I guess I'll find out what the wolves have in store for me now . . .

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you please inform me exactly what criteria I have not met for creating the "ISAUNA" entry?

Thank you, Ali

Spoiler Tags

Any particular reason why you didn't mention there is an ongoing discussion about spoiler tags

I wondered why there was a sudden increase in removing the spoiler tags so followed contributions and came upon the discussion .Garda40 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't mention the discussion because (i) it has not resulted in a change in policy yet, and (ii) I assumed it was fairly widely known. No malice or deception was intended. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workers World

Are you deleting all references to Workers World? Why? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are spammy and it is not a reliable source for most topics. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Workers World well enough to form an opinion. Can you clarify why it's not a WP:RS? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, it is a paper run by a small, extreme political party (Workers World Party) pushing an agenda, rather than reporting neutrally on the topics it covers. We wouldn't treat press releases from the Democratic or Republican political parties as reliable sources for political topics and this source has the added disadvantage of being an extreme minority viewpoint. Incidentally, I see I did not answer your initial question. Sorry. I'm not deleting all of the links, but on most topics using the paper as a reliable source or exeternal link is not appropriate. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I suppose you're right about that. I ask because I saw the links removed from Harry Hay and Morris Kight. Hay was a member of the Communist Party, though I don't think Kight was. I added them back, but I think I'll remove Kight's - Hay's would be a part of his history, so could remain. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problems with that. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCDSA

Please see new notability info on MCDSA deletion debate page.Also note flawed altavista search result and new serahc which has numerous English media sources naming the org.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgarga (talk • contribs)

MCDSA in google archive

Search MCDSA in Google archive..1st hit if from this Medical College Dem Student Org. Also, about your comment on large English media in India, I hope you do realize it is large in number when compared to some of the western countries but not extensive in India.In India, its the vernacular local media that is the main new source and opinion former.MCDSA has been the featured in atleast 3 books on Indian student movement.Student senate elections in US and student union elections in India are not same - if you need more clarifications, please contact back (e-mail removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgarga (talk • contribs)

I can only suggest you and Soman cite the sources you used to write the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1997 UAAP Women's Volleyball

This is Postcard Cathy. I wrote the prod the way I did because I could not remember the exact reason why articles like that were deleted but I knew they were. But your prod 2 reminded me that they were deleted for the exact reason you stated. So, while I may not have worded in a way that may not have been pleasing to you, we were thinking the same thing!

Thanks for the message. Even though you were right this time, please be more careful prodding articles in the future. Prodded articles don't get the same level of review as articles at AfD and you cannot count on the admins reviewing them to be perfect when most of what they see is, indeed, crap. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your comment at RfC...

...i'd love to move on. We can't until this gets proper closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, these things rarely get proper closure. There's a destructive part of the culture at WP where people think that in giving an opinion on a topic they must phrase their answer as though the outcome they prefer is obviously right and that anybody who disagrees with them must be a moron. We're seeing at lot of that at the RFC.

I understand your frustration here: the article had received sufficient coverage to be notable and even had a non-pop-culture angle that could be explored (thus taking it out of the relatively amorphous category of "netcruft"). There was not even (AFAIK) a complaint about it over OTRS. Nevertheless, in the end it was an article about people making fun of a fat kid. I think you need to pick you battles wisely and this one might not have been the smartest to engage on. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wise battle, and was not "an article about making fun of a fat kid" when the whole thing started, either. These are the myths I'm forced to contend with, here, and now, with accusations of bad faith, it's only getting worse. So whatever. Nice username, BTW. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the article did not make fun of the kid, but was about people who were making fun of the kid. The size of the distinction there seems to be what is in dispute. I don't have a strong opinion on this myself and did not weigh in on any of the various deletion discussions.

My username is, of course, intended to be ironic. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup on demand - thanks, need some help

I had been tempted to say something similar at various points in recent AfDs myself, and it's a welcome sight indeed. Now, there have been some problems with a few articles, partially Mackan dropping WP:AGF rather too often in AfDs for political blogs, of which this is a prime example and without a clear understanding of the scope of the policy. If you could assist I'd be grateful. I'm also hoping for some word on whether any of my postings were ill-advised - I have taken pains to ensure they are not, but I might have committed some error. --Edwin Herdman 10:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume the assumption of good faith. He seems to be making reasonably valid arguments in the AfD you link to, based on my reading of it. I of course do not take any position on substance of the AfD itself, as I was contacted about it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please remember to assume the assumption of good faith." - Of course I am; he is the one who keeps accusing others of not having good faith, and not just in this AfD. He accused me a number of times of not having good faith when it was blatantly obvious I did. --Edwin Herdman 20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your post above. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think your comment is still appropriate. I had left some fighting words on Mackan's talk page and realized that I needed to tone it down. Maybe I still do, but it's better, anyway. I'm now thinking that while it's causing Mackan needless friction to refuse to answer the question, it is appropriate to do so on principle or really for any other reason. Again, many thanks. --Edwin Herdman 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about the multiple nominations. The AfD you linked to looks like it will end in keep. Once an article has been kept at AfD, it is generally looked on unkindly to nominate it again, unless the nominator has a good reason. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution youth

Yes, it should be. Thanks for reminding me. >Radiant< 08:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Teen

If you'd bothered and put some effort in, you might have noticed that some states do the naming it differently. You might even have noticed the discussion of the Arkansas naming on the article's talk page. Even now I've just realised that the official version of what I thought was Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding teen doesn't actually have the "'s". If you're going to meddle without putting in some background research, how about meddling with something you're knowledgable about. PageantUpdater 03:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd bothered and put some effort in & without putting in some background research Rich, coming from someone who did no research and simply copypasted the same text into multiple articles. Anyway, I did do the research for these and did not find anything worthwhile.

some states do the naming it differently Right and the Did you Mean feature on Google didn't show much either. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would simply write proper articles instead of copypasting the same text into multiple articles without simply doing the research before writing the article, it wouldn't be necessary to waste time AfDing them. If you want to add material that has reliable sources (although I could not find them), you need to do the research, not simply throw stuff up that practically screams SPAM and then jump down the throat of the poor guy who is trying to clean up the mess. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

What do u mean?? What is Dip Snap?--Redtigerxyz 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC) I had nothing to do with Dip Snap nor does my contributions show any ref to it. Though someone had created user name Redtigerxyz1 similar to mine, which was later deleted. This may have this user's act.--Redtigerxyz 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And when I went to leave a message it must have redirected to your page. Mystery solved. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dip Snap

I had also noticed that it was back, but as I had not been around in awhile, I just assumed that it was decided to not delete the article. I have no idea how it came back, I even approved it's deletion after I had it explained to me why it did not meet Wikipedia standards. Sorry I can't help... Vint 14:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my external links removed?

Why were my external links removed...there is no conflict with the wikipedia links policy. I reposted them, and hope there will be no issues again.

michaelcullinane

Lady Universe AfD

Hi,

I'm not sure how this happened, but you seem to have created two AfDs at once (a normal one, and a "(second nomination)" a minute later) for this article. I deleted the duplicate second nomination for you, and de-listed it from AfD, leaving the first one in place. If something beyond my understanding was going on, and this was a bad thing to do, please let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was having connectivity problems and was interrupted in the middle of completing the first nom. I thought I had cleaned it up, but apparently not. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin error

Sorry, I really did think you were an admin. I thought that I remembered you closing some discussions. Maybe I had just seen you around. At any rate, I was really just trying to get the other user to not troll regarding you or make baseless accusations. Regards --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I wasn't offended, only surprised. Thanks for sticking up for me. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nysted/Walker/Sucherman

thank you isotoe23!

AMG links for Matt Walker playing on SHOOT FROM THE HIP

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:fifyxqedldfe~T2

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=MATT%7CWALKER&sql=11:kpfuxquhldhe~T4

AMG links for Todd Sucherman playing on Whispers Of Wisdom

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:3ifexzrhldte~T2

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=TODD%7CSUCHERMAN&sql=11:wpfoxq8gld0e~T4 125.135.63.135 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]