User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Archives/2007

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). Best wishes, Travb (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Best wishes for 2007 to you too! I haven't been around on Wikipedia much for the last few months and I can tell my English language skills take this opportunity to quietly sneak away :) Kind regards, JoanneB 12:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Memories of Universal Victimhood

I don't really know. I can agree or disagree with individual sentences. Parts of the text seem obvious, others may seem naive. Maybe I simply did not understand why the authors devoted over 10 pages to this without clear conclusions. Not very appalling to me. What are your thoughts ? --Lysy^talk 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the authors carelessly twist the names of the people they are writing about, including Lithuanian writer, Venclova, which leaves a kind of unprofessional after-taste, like if they lack some basic knowledge of what they're writing about. --Lysy^talk 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"commonly quoted" estimates of deaths in Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Hi,

I understand why you deleted the sentence regarding "commonly quoted". Here's what I was trying to communicate to the reader.

The range of estimates runs from 500,000 (Haar?) to 3 million (U.S. Congressman Reece - 1957). However, the range of estimates that seem to be given widest credence are 1.1 million (Overmans?) to 2.2 million (Center against Expulsions). I was trying to point the reader towards the 1.1 million to 2.2 million. Perhaps this is not appropriate.

I was responding to objections that Reece's 3 million number was ludicrously high (perhaps it was). I also have the sense the Haar's estimate of 500,000 may be too low. Do we have a way of evaluating these various estimates? I don't mean that we should do the evaluation (that would be OR) but can we somehow communicate that the mainstream opinion runs between 1.1 million and 2.2 million with 500,000 and 3 million being extremes at both ends of the range?

--Richard 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should be doing this. While Reece was not a historian, and I believe that all would agree that he quoted the number out-of-the-blue for political reasons, Haar and Overmans both are historians and give the 500.000-600.000 thousand range. In my private opinion the numbers resulting from a relative recent research of historians are more credible than earlier figures given by politicians or Centre Against Expulsions. Your mileage may vary of course. --Lysy^talk 21:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Message

You have message on my page [1]AS>--131.104.218.46 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You have next message on [2] AS>--131.104.218.46 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your extremely kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks & miscellany

Gidday Richard! Firstly I'd just like to say thanks for your supportive comments on my recently successful RfA nomination- coming from you I regard them as high praise indeed. If I can halfway live up to your standards of respect and conscientiousness, I'd be doing well. Give me a bell if I can help you out with anything, and if and when you feel like pursuing a nomination yourself I'd be only too happy to support if not actually nominate.

On another note, I haven't been doing much for WP:AZTEC specifically of late, though of course the articles are watched and tinkered with from an overall WP:MESO viewpoint. I know you're busy in a dozen other directions as well (one of the vices of wikipedia, there are too many interesting corners to tarry in!), so was wondering if you've still plans for the project, or what and how to 'tidy up' if it's sleeping for now. Maybe once the push for getting Mayan languages up to FA is out of the way, we could choose an Aztec-related one for FA or GA prep- maybe retry for Spanish conquest of Mexico?--cjllw | TALK 07:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you advise I proceed in this situation?

Hi,

As I understand it, fair use of an image is considered permissible for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs.

The use of Norman Rockwell's painting of Ruby Bridges in the Norman Rockwell article probably meets the criteria but the use of the same image in the Ruby Bridges article does not meet any of these criteria.

It seems to me, therefore, that the image should be kept but the use of the image in the Ruby Bridges article should be removed.

Do you agree? Should I just be bold and delete the image or should I start a discussion somewhere? If the latter, where should that discussion be held?

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Richard. Nice to hear from you again. I doubt the picture is part of Fair Use policy. Anyways, i've just forwarded and posted your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia talk:Copyrights and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I m sure we'll get an answer. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the Papacy

Thank you very much for the expansion -- it's looking good! However, I'd like to see you go through the text you've added and cite sources for the expansion. It's nothing personal, just that I really enjoy seeing that text isn't plagiarized. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

		The Original Barnstar
		Richard, enjoy this brown star for the kilobytes of additions you've made to the History of the Papacy article. I'm truly impressed; how did ya get the motivation to do all that writing!? :) ☠MESSEDROCKER☠05:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! It's nice to have my contributions recognized and, since this is only the second barnstar that I've received in the ten months that I've been a Wikipedian, I'm just tickled pink to get it.

To answer your question: It's really quite crazy but I was motivated to expand the History of the Papacy article because of this AFD. The decision was to merge that two-line piece of othing into the History of the Papacy article. Well, I figured I'd be bold and do the merging. Couldn't be hard, right? Only two lines... what the hey. Well, surprise, surprise, when I got to the History of the Papacy article, I found that it, too, was just a stub. Well, OK, being a sort of Catholic, I figure I know something about the history of the Church and the Papacy and so I just started fleshing stuff out and, voilá, it's not complete but I think it's a good start.

Once again, thanks for the recognition and the encouragement. (And, yes, I will work on getting everything sourced as best as I can so that we can maintain Wikipedia's quality standards. It's just hard to deal with citations and sources when you're trying to document 2000 years of history in a few hours.)

--Richard 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll say! Be sure to get some sleep, eh? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker 16:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Humour

I feel we are at cross purposes. See British humour. Colin4C 21:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder if you understand that I have no problem with the content of the "Anti-Catholic humor" section except that (1) it doesn't seem to be very "anti-Catholic" or at least the case hasn't been made that it is and (2) I don't think the Anti-Catholicism article is the right place for it.

I like the British humour article fine and I think it would be a great model for an article titled Humor about the Roman Catholic Church. The content of the "Anti-Catholic humor" section would be find inside that article.

Are we still at cross-purposes?

--Richard 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for December has been published. January's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hi Richard, sorry it took me a while to answer. Thanks for the message and happy new year to you too. I'm spending a bit less time on Wikipedia these days (or more time doing other things, if your glass is half full)... There was no big reason for removing my personal info except my work info will soon be incorrect: I've handed in my notice, I'm going travelling to South America for a while - see some pre-columbian ruins from close by, among other things :-)

The rest of the info had been there for a while and I was a bit tired of it. I don't really like user pages anyway except to keep some links and information for myself, I don't see it as a way to communicate to the rest of the "community". One of the things I dislike here is that some people seem to believe the community is more important than the encyclopedia. I like communicating and working together, but I believe there are better places to build a social life :-)

So anyway, nothing really wrong, I would love to spend more time writing here, I'd really love to bring the Aztec article (among others) to FA status (and to finally change that damn name - somehow we still haven't...). But it will all take time...

See you around, Piet | Talk 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Expulsions

Hello Richard, I would like to direct you to User:Jadger/draft expulsions. I copied the source from the currently protected article Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and have done a little bit of editting. So far I have only edited to the Background section. you can see the difference of my version by checking the history, as I directly copied the article without changes as the first edit, then started editing on the second version. I have not added the things we have been discussing on the talk page yet, but simply rewriting what is already in the article.

please leave your comments on the draft's discussion page, and don't forget to include any of your own changes you would make. I would prefer if your comments on the talk page are in point form, that way they are easier to address than long diatribes are.

thank you --Jadger 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on HoC

Thanks for expanding some sections in the History of Christianity article. I've been trying to get what was just a mess of random information hammered into an article. Eventually, the hope is the article will be well referenced and the like, but at present any accurate text is an improvement over what exists. Thx. Lostcaesar 07:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, improving these and other articles on the history of the Church is something I would be interested in doing. As for my "plan" on the history of Christianity, my thought was to arrange materially chronologically with, as you say, an introductory section that discusses the dates, names, and so on. I really didn't begin with an overall plan. What happened was I stumbled onto the article one day and saw it was just a timeline. I thought about contributing but delayed, for I am rather busy an so on. A few months later I looked again, and it was more of a mess, except that someone (who had been banned) had put all sorts of nonsense up. So I decided to try and make something out of the article (which is why I was relieved to see another contributing). Now I suffer from not having a large body of sources (most of my books are still overseas), and I know its generally not customary to have one person write extensive prose, but I suppose that something is better than nothing so long as it is correct, and I do have some sources. If I have time I may gather some books from by university library, but my checkout limit is always close to full with just my post-grad research sources &c. What I mean by all this is, by all means, if you have some idea of how to improve the article go for it.

I had a quick look at the History of the Papacy article, but I didn't get a full read through yet. Obviously that article had certain unique challenges, but it is good to see a full text going up. In my view, the aim is to get a basically accurate and well accepted text up first, and to fully source in due time. That, at least, is my hope with the HoC article, where I hope to add sources to areas that are lacking in due course. As for handling the issue of the Papacy in the HoC article, it is always difficult because one must decided were to introduce an office that has a 2000 year development. Personally I think Late Antiquity would perhaps be the best place, sketching a history to the pontificate of Leo the Great, then, in the medieval section, the temporal (feudal) might of the papacy could be developed. But that's just a thought. Right now I'm just trying to turn an outline into an article, as I have time.

Lostcaesar 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism Article

Hi, Richard. I read your comments on the Anti-Catholicism article. I'd support a re-oganization of the article into historic and contemporary. Majoreditor 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good start. Thanks for the initiative. I've added my thoughts for further reorganizations on the Anti-Catholicism talk page. Majoreditor 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Richard, I've found official public domain translation of the Rozumet dejinam on the ministry pages, you would be interested, it's in english - chapter 6 in PDF [3] ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 00:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello. You mentioned recently in a discussion I edited that I should archive rather than remove obscene comments. How would I archive said comments? Thanks for your advice. --OlJanx 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi Richard, I left you an editor review. Since you said you're interested in adminship, I responded to that point. YechielMan 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exodus of Germans

Hello Richard. The answer is simply: in Wikification WikiProject, trying to help clear the backlog of articles for wikification. I like like the way it introduces me to new subjects. And to new editors too. I notice from your talk page you have been involved in some articles related to Christianity. If you don't already know about it, there's a new WikiProject Religion. Best regards. Itsmejudith 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Most recent contrib

Heads up that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hildanknight had already been archived when you posted to it, you might want to cross-post your post to Wikipedia:Editor review/Hildanknight. – Chacor 09:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I figured that out after I hit "Save" but I figured I'd leave the comment there. I will do the cross-posting eventually but I want to give him a chance to get a real editor review from someone else first. --Richard 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your email btw. – Chacor 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for your post on my RFC. While I was aware that Kelly Martin was an established but controversial user, I did not know that she was a "drama queen". In response to your comments: I agree I do need to "take a pill and chill". However, when I return to Wikipedia, I will still need to learn how to not let the verifiability policy affect my ability to write, and how to handle conflicts better (though "take a pill and chill" may be good advice for handling conflicts better). Though I owe you too much already, I'd appreciate it if you comment on my editor review, providing advice that would help me get more out of my time on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Church

I'm in the process of fixing that. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Be Civil

Reference is made to your remarks on [4]. You may disagree with my opinion but I don't. I do not consider my remarks neither nonesense or off-base. Someone may believe that YOUR comments are, but, on Wikipedia, they should always find a civil way to let you know. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Lcnj 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

HoC

On the talk page you proposed this framework for the article:

First, I think this article should focus on the geographical and political evolution of the various Christian churches and denominations as well aa their interaction with external entities, most notably governments and rulers but also other religions. This is primarily an institutional view of Christianity.

I think a lot of the additions on post-modern Christianity deviate a good deal from this focus, and I wondered if you have changed your mind. The article is also getting really long. Lostcaesar 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody ever responded to the proposal and so I wasn't sure how much support there was for it.

Nonetheless, I agree that the "Postmodern Christianity" section does seem out of focus as being too "ivory tower" theological. There is value in cross-fertilizing History of Christianity and History of Christian theology but this wasn't a good example. Obviously, I wasn't thinking too clearly last night.

I tried to trim down the section this morning but even the trimmed-down section seemed out of focus, so I removed the section entirely. If you can write a good summary that fits, then please do so. Otherwise, I'm fine to leave it out.

As for the article getting long, I'm not quite sure what to do with it. The idea of articles for History of Christian theology and History of Christian rites and practices should help some but not enough.

Another possibility is to create an article title Medieval Christianity and move the appropriate sections to it, replacing them with summaries.

The "Revivalism" section could probably be shortened into a tighter summary.

As you may have noticed, I'm not good at writing tight summaries so I figured I'd leave this to you since you seem to be better at it than me.

--Richard 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nitschke and Overmans

Now I'm really puzzled. Someone quotes Overmans' figure to be 1.1 million. Then Serafin cites Nitschke to claim 1,1 million as well. In the book that I have in hands, Nitschke says that Overmans claimed 610 thousand and she agrees with him. Can you make anything out of this ? Are we comparing apples with oranges ? --Lysy^talk 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are sort of comparing apples and oranges. I would have to dig it out of the voluminous discussion on this topic but someone said Haar and Overmans agree on 500,000 to 600,000 and then you have to add another 500,000 which brings you to 1.1 million. I'm not sure if this last bit about adding 500,000 is OR or legitimately representing Overmans position. This is why I keep asking for sources. I find the numbers in the range of 500,000 to 600,000 difficult to understand because there is no backup to explain how Haar and Overmans arrived at those numbers or what they represent. I feel there is an answer but we just haven't gotten to the right sources.

--Richard 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I think we did discuss this and I initially suggested the merger but eventually we agreed on something like a general framework article, and a series of sub-articles, dealing with evacuation, expulsions etc. separately. This is was discussed here. But maybe we were too ambitious at that time ? I think one of the reasons not to merge was to isolate the contentious parts in separate articles. The other might be the clarity of presenting it to the reader. --Lysy^talk 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a reply...

...on my talk page. The Transhumanist   22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

expulsion

That discussion leads to nowhere unfortunately. When I started editing wikipedia I've never thought that here are people like Jadger, and Wikiferdi. Discussion with them is useless and I am starting to be very tired, all this forces me to leave editing wikipedia forever. Happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Jadger and Wikiferdi have been obstinate and obnoxious. On the other hand, so have you. I would hope that you would learn to work with us rather than being obstructionist.

I'm sorry that you feel you must stop editing Wikipedia. If you decide to come back, I hope you will find a way to be more collaborative.

--Richard 23:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was, but sometimes some things must not be left without reaction. Sometimes it goes too far. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: please don't push yourself to one bag with them, you were always kind :) ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I would wish that we could all discuss the issues civilly and work together to improve the article. Sometimes (like now) I despair of this being possible. --Richard 16:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

re

The HoC article has a good bit of info. There are a couple of sections that need attention, but I have not wanted to put too much up since the article is so long already. Thanks for asking for my opinion on the HoCT article. I do not know how qualified I am but I'll give it a look when I get a moment. I am sure you did a fine job. Meanwhile, just keep plugging away on those history articles. Text can always be revised, after all. Lostcaesar 11:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: History of German settlement in Eastern Europe

lol, I know this may make you angry because you put so much time and effort into the article you created, but you may want to check out the Ostsiedlung article. Same topic, older article, not nearly as well written however, so you basically just started from scratch writing an article that already exists. However, from my skimming of your article, it is obvious yours is much better written, Ostsiedlung has been one of them "to do" things that I've never gotten around to doing.

--Jadger 08:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I knew about the Ostsiedlung article. My article is more than just a "rewrite" of that article.

The History of German settlement in Eastern Europe article is intended to start much earlier (with the Migration Period) and continue on through the Ostsiedlung and Hanseatic League era into the 19th and 20th centuries, touching on the world wars and the expulsions. It's a grand sweep of 1700 years of history. A lot of work is still needed but I think this provides a good start.

--Richard 08:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, I realize your article is more than just a rewrite, sorry if that came across wrong. I just realized something however; History of German settlement in Eastern Europe the word that I bolded some people may have trouble with, as that has also been touched on in the "discussion" on expulsions article. I'm so glad you started as far back as the migration period, my mind has been so fixated on fighting Tulko's POV on expulsions that when I read the section on Migration period I started thinking "how does this relate to the Germano-Polish problems now?" I gave my head a shake, and I think I may need a wikibreak.

--Jadger 08:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

yeh, all that back and forth POV pushing can warp your brain. It was therapeutic for me to just work on editing an article instead of arguing and counter-arguing endlessly. --Richard 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have enough

Thank you for your cooperation. Xx236 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Serafin

Hello, Richard! J.smith blocked Serafin in January, to which that user resorted to sockpuppetry to continue editing. J.smith ended up lengthening the block to a month (expiring February 19th-ish). Serafin continued to use sockpuppets while blocked, although the original block was not extended. Upon the expiration of the block, Serafin used his primary account and User:Snieg to edit-war, confirmed by Checkuser. He was subsequently blocked for another month. In late February Heimstern extended the block as he thought Serafin was using newer sockpuppets; Checkuser did not confirm this, however, so Heimstern rescinded the extension.

Although it is an IP address, "131.104.218.46" is undoubtedly Serafin. The address was used the last few days to again revert war on the same articles that Serafin edits (German-Polish and beekeeping topics). I doubt it is a shared IP, as all edits made by the IP address have concerned topics relating to Serafin's interests. While I believe it is a static IP, it was only blocked for a week following J.smith's earlier example. I restarted Serafin's block in accordance with our policies (WP:SOCK & WP:BP).

To answer your question at the Expulsions article, you are under no obligation to participate in enforcing blocks or bans. Does this answer the questions you asked? Olessi 01:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm just sorry that Serafin cannot find a way to make his points in a more civil way and without edit warring. His actions have made the Expulsion of Germans after World War II a less enjoyable experience for me. (But not just him, there are a number of other POV-pushing editors of that article that have also detracted from the experience). I will say that I have learned some things from 131/Serafin. Even if I don't agree with much of what he says, I am seeing that the current revision of the article could be shifted towards a more NPOV stance. Unfortunately, I cannot make any of the changes until we convince an admin that page protection should be lifted. Given the heavy POV-pushing on the Talk Page in recent weeks, I cannot make such an argument with integrity at this time. --Richard 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Misbehaviour on Wikipedia

“…shut up and keep your mouth in silence” (cf. Tulkolahten 07:39, 19 February 2007) from Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II - I am really disappointed about Wikipedia, allowing such offending profanity. - Wikiferdi 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tulkolahten has been uncivil but you have also been uncivil and have provoked him as he has provoked you. Jadger and Xx236 are also guilty. Now is not the time to point fingers at each other or trying to determine who has been nastier than the other. Now is the time to decide that you want to help build an encyclopedia. If you don't want to build an encyclopedia, then you should leave. The past six weeks has not improved the article at all nor has it moved us closer to consensus. It is time to stop this kind of behavior and work towards consensus. --Richard 07:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiferdi, there are clearly different standards of civility. I don't think it is unreasonable to call arguments ridiculous or nonsense. Other people do and I have been chided for doing that (see the section titled "Be civil" above). I believe your comments have been uncivil enough to incite strong emotions in the conversation. If you really cannot see that you have been a major (not necessarily the primary) participant in the running battle on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, I will attempt to document it for you but frankly, I have better things to do with my time. I would prefer not to go to that level of effort until we are forced to go to ARBCOM as a last resort.

Would you please not write about me without informing me about your attacks? If you haven't realized - I don't write in Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II any more. Xx236 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, your comments on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II speak for themselves. I will agree not to mention your user id and your past record under one of two conditions:

1. You agree to a consensus that removes protection from Expulsion of Germans after World War II and make a good faith effort to abide that consensus or
2. You agree not to edit Expulsion of Germans after World War II if and when it ever gets unprotected.

Without an agreement along the lines of either option 1 or option 2, it will be difficult to argue with any sort of integrity that page protection should be limited.

None of the above applies if we wind up in arbitration. In that situation, all evidence in the Talk Pages is fair game.

--Richard 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also quit the discussion, Wikiferdi's last quote that WWII was caused by Czechs and Polish is too much for me for a reasonable discussion because this is not for discussion. Richard I believe you are able to write NPOV article so I supported lift of protection. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 16:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not my desire to chase anyone away from this or any other article in Wikipedia. However, when a page is protected, it is a strong indication that the collaborative process has broken down. Usually a day or two break from editing is enough to convince people to seek compromise and consensus. Occasionally a week or two is needed. Two months is excessive and we are nearing the two month mark. Something must be done. I have invited everyone to join me in an effort to seek consensus. If you cannot get on the bandwagon then at least do not obstruct it.

--Richard 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that both Xx and Tulko have said they won't discuss on the talk page, not that they will not edit war when the page is unprotected. So, there is really no way we can unprotect it as they refuse to discuss any form of consensus. I would be all for unprotecting the article... but how can we be sure it won't end in another edit war which is plain to see they will not compromise on.

--Jadger 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I proposed the two options "seek consensus" or agree not to block the consensus by edit warring. This set of options applies to you also, Jadger. Please either support the compromise that I proposed in the "Forming a consensus to unprotect this page" section of Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II, propose a different compromise or at least agree not to stand in the way of a consensus. --Richard 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No kiddin'!

Hi Richard. Scuze me for asking, but what's the purpose of a user box that says, "This user is a member of Wikipedia?" Isn't having a user page prima facie evidence of being a member? Oh well, whatever.... Sca 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

DOH! That's what I get for copying a bunch of userboxes without thinking much about what they actually said or implied. --Richard 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:DYK

I think some of the recent articles you've created (like Territorial changes of Germany) would make excellent DYKs with just a litle bit of polishing (WP:LEAD, etc.). Unfortunatly I am currently a bit to busy for serious editing and the DYKs are good only for articles under a week old...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I never thought of them as DYK candidates. If you tell me what you think would be a good DYK, I might get motivated and clean up the articles ASAP as opposed to "when I get around to it". I will admit that I am not a good polisher and therefore might need to enlist some help. --Richard 23:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, any new article is a good DYK. It's nice to share your work with others - and DYKs are one of the best ways to get recognition (global!) plus perhaps even more important, make quite a few editors notice the article (and edit it, link it from others, and so on). As for the wikification, the article was missing lead - that's a significant problem (WP:LEAD). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

hope you don't mind

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of reverting what I think was a vandalization of your userpage [5]

--Jadger 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I would have preferred it if you would have moved it to this Talk Page instead of just deleting it. I had to look at the edit history to figure out what you were talking about. Once I looked at it, I realized that it was a bit of harassment from a disgruntled new editor who didn't like my reversion of his edits. I left him a warning. Hopefully, he will get the message and clean up his act. --Richard 07:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

alright, no problem, if I catch it first again, I'll make sure to do that.

--Jadger 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

regarding territorial changes of Germany article, you read my mind, I actually placed it on my watchlist minutes before you left that message. However, right now I am mighty tired and so will be going to bed before I edit any more. I have to give you "props" for starting the article, I just hope the kind of revert wars of recovered territories doesn't spread to this page also, and ruin all of your hard work, turning it into another article broken up like the expulsions article.

--Jadger 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussions on pov

my bad sorry that i put it on your user page instead of your talk page. I will make sure to cheak that they go only on your talk page from now on. Again sorry for acidently putting it on your user page Since i cant not add to any of the articles how do i create a new one? this will be a place where i can put opinions of my own without "vandalizies" other people's articlesMstare88 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC) from mstare88

You're not getting the point. It doesn't matter whether you create a new article or edit an existing one. The Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view still apply. You are welcome to add to articles but you need to write from an NPOV stance and in an encyclopedic way. At the very minimum, write as if you were writing a college-level term paper. (Although many contributions to Wikipedia are criticized for being only at the level of a college term paper, this will at least be considered marginally acceptable and worthy of editing to improve the level of writing.)

It is important for you to realize that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Until you grasp this concept, your experience here will be very frustrating.

If you create a new article along the lines of your previous edits, it is likely to be nominated for deletion via WP:AFD in a very short period of time (oftentimes a minute or two after creation). Some Wikipedia editors monitor the list of newly created pages and will nominate for deletion any article that is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thus, you may find it frustrating to have your article deleted after you have worked to put it together.

For this reason, I urge you to read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT before proceeding. Once you have done so, read Help:Starting a new page. You might also look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article.

Good luck and feel free to ask any other questions that may arise.

--Richard 16:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - redux

I have reverted you changes made to Talk:Historical eastern Germany under "Survey - redux" because everyone should be able to make their own decision on what is "candidates which have no chance of garnering consensus." It is not something that any editor should impose on anothers. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you missed the point. Some of the options have been pre-empted by the creation of articles by that title or similar titles (e.g. Territorial changes of Germany. Others have simply gotten so little support that they are obviously "not in the running". My edit was an attempt to reduce the field to the ones that seemed to have the greatest support. But, no matter, if you wish to insist that we work with the original unwieldy list then be my guest.

--Richard 08:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Yannismarou

Hello Richard, I have recently been blocked by Yannismarou when I was in a content dispute about a Greek related article with him.[6] I noticed you had questioned him about referenced text he had removed about a month back from another Greek related article [7]. I could not find any reply by him, did he reply to you? Thanks! NN 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember getting a reply to my query to him. --Richard 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I couldn't find any answer by him to your question either. He later went on to block (on 10:22, 3 February 2007) User:Laertes_d whose referenced text he had deleted. While I agree that Laertes_d was abrasive, the behavior from the other side wasn't exactly exemplary either. I think it is improper for an Admin to block a user whose referenced text he has previously reverted, and not provided an explanation when asked for by you. Laertes_d's behavior may have been worthy of a block, but should it have been done by one already involved in a content dispute? NN 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

help woth aztec rulers after the conquest

Hello Richard. I see you have a lot of wotk to do wooowww. It´s awesome.. But if you could spare a little time.. could you check (and clean) the articles :

1. Diego Velázquez Tlacotzin
2. Andrés de Tapia Motelchiuh
3. Pablo Xochiquentzin
4. Diego Huanitzin
5. Diego de San Francisco Tehuetzquitizin

While i have found only one source about them, maybe this will ecourage people to know more about them.. And thsi short biographies paint a an interesting part in Mexico history. thanks Nanahuatzin 07:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... it may take me a while but I will take a look at them. I haven't seen you around in a while. It's good to see you back. --Richard 07:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much work and little time, but i try to keep an eye  :) . thanks Nanahuatzin 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick pass on all the articles and fixed the most obvious issues. I'll try to take a second look later on. --Richard 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with Christian History

Hi Richardshusr,

I found you via the Christianity article and it appears that you know quite a bit about Christian history. I am currently working on the Nero article and was wondering if we could get some outside help on the section concerning Nero in Christian Tradition. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Best regards,
Djma12 ^(talk) 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel / felt

It's no big deal either way, as far as I'm concerned. But yes, the large bout of reform proposals is pretty much over for now. I would suggest bringing your proposals to AFD's talk page, or the village pump, simply because it'd get more attention there. >Radiant< 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

long read

Hi Richard,

I've read the flaming parts of the Carthage controversy. What I liked most is what Vedexent posted in User:Kara Umi user page.

I also read a substantial part of that very long and scholarly article you linked to in one of the archived talk pages.

The long readings confirm what I thought: revisionists are wrong. However, I applaud your efforts for NPOVing the Carthage articles.

I also liked what you said: "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig" on 9 June 2006.

—Cesar Tort 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:former blah blah blah

PMAnderson was saying that those territories had always been 100% Polish inhabited and inferring that the German rule of the lands was somehow illegitimate or wrong.

--Jadger 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I kind of figured that was what he was saying but my knowledge in this area is not strong enough to know for sure. Is his assertion true? Were those areas predominantly Polish? --Richard 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit, Province of Posen was the only area of Imperial Germany that was predominantly Polish, but there was a significant German population there. East Prussia he claims that only the cities were German, and all the countryside was inhabited by Poles, but as you can understand, people don't speak a totally different language in the country than they do in the city. East Prussia was German through and through, since the Northern Crusades. it was the center of the Teutonic Knights.

--Jadger 06:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read East Prussia and Province of Posen articles, they are very well written, and you should note this section in particular here. as you can see, although the source is cited incorrectly, sizeable Polish population in East Prussia, but not enough to claim it was Polish, or that the people wanted to be a part of Poland.

--Jadger 06:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

D-PL

You may be interested in: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,471777,00.html

Sca 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quinta das Lágrimas

Hi, you cleaned up part of the article, however, I feel that the rest of it is little more than lore and next to impossible to source. even ignoring the language, reading it gives good hints. the Pedro and Ines affair has been the subject of a lot of writing, most of it heavy on the fiction...that's why I nominated it for deletion. Galf 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, While I appreciate your effort to clean-up the article, I still think the subject is quite worthless. Sorry. As it stands now there are 3 lines about the farms and the rest is about Pedro and Ines. The affair is covered elsewhere, and the farm is itself quite unremarkable. the house(hotel) dates to the 1800s, like thousands of others around the country. I might also point out that the building afaik isn't in the historical registry, and believe me, they classify ANY hint of remarkability. that article is either part of a spin or an effort from the students from the secondary school that put up the website to either "show the world" their work or to increase it's legitimacy by having an encyclopedia article. so, even if defeated, my nomination stays. Galf 08:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted so much of your work. I have sourced the information needed and added it to the article. Fell free to take your turn at chopping it up! :-) Galf 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dis you get enough sleep? lol I dunno how to do that, can you help? Hou do you like the article now, anyway?Galf 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

expulsion

Feel free to release sandbox you created, I made a couple of changes with whom I agree, you have my support. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 08:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation_of_Poland_(1939-1945)#Scope

I am afraid I disagree with your recent edits there - please see my comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article's talk for more. --Irpen 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note broken ref no.6 ('Lukowski'). I know the author (Jerzy Lukowski) and book but I am not sure which page do you refer to - you may want to go back and copy the full ref from the relevant article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Deutsche Volksliste

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Deutsche Volksliste, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://eclipse.sggee.org/pipermail/ger-poland-volhynia/2003-April/001681.html. As a copyright violation, Deutsche Volksliste appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Deutsche Volksliste has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Deutsche Volksliste and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Deutsche Volksliste with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Deutsche Volksliste.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. andy 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposed replacement text has been put on Talk:Deutsche Volksliste. I will work on rewriting the longer text to avoid copyvio issues. --Richard 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On offer

Richard, since you've shown considerable interest in the topic, I'd like to offer you (by email) my academic paper, "Revenge: The Expulsion of the Germans." If you're interested, just send me an email request (see my User page). Sca 18:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seek your advice on a page that has been protected for over two months

I was going to leave a message on the talk page of User:Robdurbar, the admin who protected the page, but he has decided to stop editing Wikipedia.

Here's the problem. The page in question, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, was protected by Robdurbar on January 18 due to editwarring (of which I was not a participant). (To be precise, I have tried to seek an NPOV stance and I have made edits towards this but I have generally not been involved in the edit warring that led to page protection).

I have been trying to form a consensus so that we could request lifting of the protection but, frankly, I have failed as the editors in question preferred to fight on the Talk Page with incivility including personal attacks. Even my suggestions that we seek mediation have been ignored.

In the last two weeks, the volume of debate has gone done but there has been little sign of increased civility and collegiality amongst the disputants. Mostly, I would say that the worst offenders have quieted down and one or two editors have shown some interest in lifting the protection but without a willingness to agree to a consensus or even to abide by the principles of Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA).

I have deliberately been waiting to see if things would change but, at this point, I think two months of page protection is excessive and it is time to return to editing.

If edit warring resumes after page protection is lifted, the only recourse that I see is to go to ARBCOM which I would prefer not to do but I can't see what else could be done.

Do you agree with my approach to this issue in the past and my proposed way forward?

--Richard 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your discussion above, i am semi-protecting the article after being fully protected for a couple of weeks. Please try to avoid edit warring or else i'll have to fully protect it again and open an RfC file. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Expulsion of Germans after World War II

what do you think about adding some of the stuff from the Victor Gollancz wikipedia article into the Expulsions article?

--Jadger 07:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea but I can't quite find the right place to insert it. Seems like we need a whole section on Polish and Czech internment camps but I don't yet have a vision of where it would go. Do you have any suggestions? --Richard 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add it were I think it should go, remove or reword it if you don't think it is right. I don't have much time as I'm growing tired so am heading to bed now, I may edit again in the morn.

--Jadger 07:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, can you find a reputable source (not Xx236 or Tulko) that actually refers to Alfred de Zayas as a pro-German revisionist? because I sure can't. He is a very reputable man, just look at the wikipedia article about him. this claim of pro-German revisionism is simple character assasination with no basis in reality.

--Jadger 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had my doubts about that which is why it went in as a second edit and with a tag. Leave it there for now and I will challenge Xx236 and Tulko to provide a citation. Otherwise, you're right... it is OR unless it can be cited. --Richard 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you do a Google search on "de Zayas revisionist", you will see that there are several pages where he is referred to as a revisionist. However, you should note that the term "revisionist" is not applied to de Zayas in a derogatory sense. It seems that these articles suggest that revision is a good thing. Try the search and read some of the articles. I think Eagle Glassheim's review of Detlef Brandes' book says it best. Glassheim wishes for a treatment that mixes the outrage of de Zayas with the detailed evidence of Brandes. --Richard 04:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from the article however (and I have done so), as the article says he is a "pro-German revisionist" which is not stated in those seach results.

You're right... "pro-German revisionist" is overstating the case. I was trying to appease our Polish friends and went too far.

--Richard 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, did you see this link [8] from the Journal of Historical review. Do you think the "Six Million Myth" referred to in that link is the original number of Germans thought killed, or the 6 million Jews that died in the holocaust? To me it sounds like the former but I had never heard that before, so I thought I'd ask you if you'd come across it anywhere else.

--Jadger 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I just took a closer look and it seems the Institute of Historical Review (and the Journal of Historical Review) is pretty shady.

--Jadger 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would guess that they are Holocaust deniers (which is what I think they are doing when they talk aboout the "6 Million Myth"). Nonetheless, they bring out some interesting points about the de Zayas book. --Richard 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just take a look at Institute for Historical Review which publishes that thing. —Cesar Tort 07:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ya thanks, I didn't bother checking the background before posting that earlier message. I'm going to bed now before I make any more dumb moves, as I'm dead tired and can't focus that well *yawn*. But I must state that I wasn't endorsing what it said in that link, but I was simply asking you (before I did more reading) if you thought the "six million myth" referred to the Holocaust or the Expulsion.

--Jadger 07:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsions of Germans

Hi Richard,

I read your comment on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive9 (19 October 2006): "...there was no single act called 'the expulsion' but rather a series of evacuations, flights and expulsions."

Well, actually I haven't read all the thread, so I don't know if maybe somenone has already given you the same response as I will do now:

Alfred de Zayas published in his book "The German expellees" some "Theses on the expulsion."

He starts:

"The term expulsion includes not only the forced expulsions from summer and autumn 1945, but also the evacuation of German population on the part of the German authorities since autumn 1944, the flight in spring 1945 generally as well as the organized forced transfers since 1946. The term expulsion must be seen so, because both the evacuated and the refugees intended to return to their homes after ending of the acts of war. However, they were barred from doing so by the Soviet and Polish authorities and therefore turned into expellees.”

Refering the "organized post-Potsdam population transfers":

De Zayas writes that the known Article XIII of the Potsdam Conference about the “human and orderly transfer” of Germans is often misinterpreted when stated that the Anglo-American would have endorsed the scope of the transfers. De Zayas – who is an expert on the Potsdam Conference – argues the converse: Article XIII had been an emergency measure because the “savage expulsions” caused a totally chaotic situation in the American and English occupation zones. This article had been an attempt for a moratorium of the expulsions.

Refering to the scope of the expulsions:

The Potsdam Conference just spoke about transfers from “Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungaria”. Expulsions of Germans out of Silesia and other still to Germany belonging parts of East Germany were pushed through by Stalin and Poland without any legal background (not to mention the International Law). They wanted to create accomplished facts so that nobody would have a real chance to question the so pegged borders.

Refering to the “Oder-Neisse line”:

There were two Neisse in East Germany. The Lusatian Neisse and the Glatzer Neisse (Nysa Kłodzka). Churchill for example could just imagine a population transfer of Germans up to this “Glatzer Neisse” – which would have meant that half of Silesia would have remained with Germany.

So the Allies differed about this subject. Stalin and Poland not…

Wikiferdi 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Richard,

I am fed up with Tulkolahten. I think he often overreacts. Instead of arguing he is answering with communist postwar stereotypes. If I tell him this I myself would flame. What shall I do, I am a quite unexperienced Wikipedian...?

Wikiferdi 10:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

P. S. What exactly is your job here at Wikipedia?

You can be fed up with me, but what you are saying is horrible. Day by day when I go in the streets I can see tens of memorial plaques where is "In 1945 hero XY died for our future", I can see Kobylisy shooting range clearly, part of history. Sometimes I read those plagues and I think about these times and I hope for peace. And you now say me that I should apologize for world war two ? All we discussed were huge unsourced numbers but some elements bring that discussion to different level, I wanted to stay away but sometimes you must fight. You will not succeed here, because Richard is closed to demagogy, he always sourced his statements in the duscission with clear point of view. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Several notes to the Expulsion from Czechoslovakia: Benes proclaimed the program of the newly appointed Czechoslovak government Beneš was not the head of the government, only prime-minister or government as the team is competent to do this.

It is not equal to describe the "Sbor poverenikov" (Board of Slovak Commissioners) as the "an appendage of the Czechoslovak government in Bratislava" The process was complex, but in 1945, till 20 October), "Sbor poverenikov Slovenskej narodnej rady" was an executive part of the Slovak national committee (SNC), and thus fully independent on the Czechoslovak government. Since 28 oct. 1945 to February 1948 the decreasing influnce of SNC meant that the "Sbor" slowly changed into the the detachment of central government. After February 1948 the independence of all Slovak administration was only nominal (though in theory survived till 1960).

So called "reslovakization" reffers only to Slovak territory.

"various forms of persecution, including: expulsions, deportations, internments, peoples court procedures, citizenship revocations, property confiscation, condemnation to forced labour camps, involuntary changes of nationality" I'm not sure if the criminal proceedings and trial shall be involved among "forms of persecution"

"citizenship revocations" again - the decree No. 33/1945 in absolute most of causes only had confirmed the German and Hungarian citizenship the people obtained after 1938. Only several hundreds or thousands cases the citizenship was removed. The "involuntary changes of nationality" were rare and I don't know any case like this. The official policy was Germans must go! - including the Czech members of families.

military command "Alex" was only one organisation of resistance and uprising amd has no broad influence. Honzula 10:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wither WP:AZTEC?

Hey there Richard. First of all, thanks for working to pour oil on the troubled waters at the Human sacrifice article(s) talk page(s). Yours is a voice of reason, as always. --cjllw | TALK 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Cesar is a bit of a hothead on this topic but he has made valued contributions and has more to offer so I would hate to see him leave Wikipedia. --Richard 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, just to let you know that some bot has come along and put an {inactive} tag on WP:AZTEC, as there had been no changes for a couple of months. It is presently beyond my humble resources to maintain both sets, and so I was thinking to somehow roll up WP:AZTEC as a kind of "task force" subproject for WP:MESO, rationalising the project pages and banners. But I'd like to hear first if you've any comments, suggestions. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 08:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh. We beat off an attempt to make WP:AZTEC inactive last year but I now see that it takes quite a bit to keep a Wikiproject going and, frankly, I've lost interest in doing so. I would be happy to see it rolled up into WP:MESO. Post a note in an appropriate place (frankly, Talk:Aztec is just a good a place as any) so that other project members can see your proposal and respond to it, if they wish. I think everybody will support the proposal but let's play it by the numbers to be safe.

--Richard 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Will place such a notice, and if no complaints then set about doing it. I was thinking to maintain one or two separate subpages, and the WP:AZTEC talk page, for separately workspaces within the overall WP:MESO structure where Aztec-specific activities could be documented. Anyway, we'll see. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC

From Mstare88

Thank you for answering my questions i would like to sayy sorry for the past article contributions, but i am also sayong taht the article to vegitarinanism was not me. someone must have been on my username and did that. because i have no memeory of ever doing thta.Mstare88 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to protect your account more carefully. Either someone else knows your password or you walked away from the computer while still logged in to Wikipedia. Perhaps you use a school computer. Make sure you log out when you leave the computer and close the browser. --Richard 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

also i was not saying that it was you that may have blocked me.Mstare88 18:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also how am i supposed to make contributions if every time i try to add weather it be good or bad it is erased?Mstare88 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a step back and look at the articles that you are interested in contributing to. If you think you can contribute to the article with material that is acceptable to Wikipedia, then go ahead and insert your edit. If it's good, it will be left alone. If it can be improved, someone will improve it. If it's bad, it will be deleted.

If you are not sure whether your edit is appropriate, then add the material that you wish to insert to the Talk Page for that article and ask the other editors of that page if you think the material is appropriate for that page. It may be that the material is appropriate but needs to be cleaned up.

--Richard 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II

Richard, I cannot add much to your article because clearly my point of view is biased. For this reason I prefer just to comment in the discussion and not to edit the text. To add the comment on Edvard Beneš's role in the expulsion I would need to read again the second volume of his memoirs by Václav Černy, I would like to do it but these days I am to busy. The fact is that Václav Černý was quite sceptical about Edvard Beneš, namely about his role during Munich agreement. BTW, my personal opinion is, that the expulsion was a bad mistake (replace mistake with whatever better expression). Cepek 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Omigod, a Wikipedia editor who is actually restrained and recognizes his own bias! You have my respect, sir, you are a rare breed. I mean this quite sincerely.

Of course, Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. Nor does it care about my opinion. What Wikipedia cares about are the verifiable opinions expressed by reliable sources.

I am very interested in the viewpoint that the expulsions were a mistake. Can you cite any published expressions of this viewpoint? (Preferably books and journal articles but even newspaper and magazine articles would do. A TV or radio broadcast is less desirable but even that can be used if documented properly.)

I am also interested in knowing whether there was any significant opposition to Benes during this time period. Was there any debate about the expulsions or did the nation pretty much agree with him?

Finally, what do Czechs think about the expulsions now? Is your viewpoint widely held or is it a minority viewpoint?

--Richard 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I am quite sure that I belong to the minority of Czechs with my opinion on the expulsion of Germans. If you are interested I can inform you on this issue when I come across them on Czech media. I am not a historian so I am not the right man to talk about history. From my personal live experience I am sure that the expulsion was unjustice and in a sense, in the end the Czecs were victims as well because the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia was one of the deeds that opened doors for stalinist communism to intrude the central Europe. Cepek 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratched comment

Re your comment you removed—:

All of this is very interesting and should be documented somewhere, maybe even in this article. Wherever we choose to document it, we must make very clear the distinction between mainstream historical analysis and the viewpoint of the psychohistorians.

One thing that I'm a bit confused about though is the use of "self-harming" as applied to Mesoamericans. Are we claiming that the Mesoamericans were "self-harming" in the sense of an individual using an obsidian knife to harm himself or are we saying that the entire society was "self harming" in their use of human sacrifice? I think it's the latter but I think the text is unclear as to what is meant and is more likely to be read in the former interpretation.

--Richard 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the first interpretation was the correct one (and BTW the Aztecs didn’t self-harm with obsidian knives but with maguey thorns; the obsidian knives were used for human sacrifice). If the distinction was unclear it's because I was only responding to cjllw. On the other hand, psychohistorians do believe that Mesoamericans internalized murderous drives due to their childrearing practices. —Cesar Tort 22:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I had forgotten about the maguey thorns when I wrote my comment and then remembered it a few minutes after I saved the comment. I realized that was what you were referring to and not human sacrifice. That's why I scratched the comment.

The implication, however, is that the sentence belongs elsewhere (e.g. in Aztec religion) and not in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture.

--Richard 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since psychohistorians talk more about murderous drives due to early infanticidal childrearing (a couple of hours ago I overhauled that article since it was pretty awful —I had never read it carefully!) than self-harming, any mention, however brief, about psychohistory belongs more to the human sacrifice articles than to religious articles. —Cesar Tort 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But this goes back to my original point. "Self-harming" by means of maguey thorns belongs in Aztec religion. Psychohistorical analysis of human sacrifice belongs in Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Human sacrifice is not "self-harming" except if viewed from a familial or societal perspective. It requires a different concept of "self" than is typically meant when the phrase "self-harming" is used. --Richard 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that the word "self-harming" is not used in the Human sacrifice in Aztec culture article. Perhaps you changed the text? In any event, I'm fine with the current text. My major concern was the concept of human sacrifice as self-harming although I understand that it can be construed that way. If human sacrifice is to be presented as self-harming, you really need to connect the dots for the reader as the average person will not necessarily follow the line of logic. --Richard 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just confused since the short section about the “psychological explanation” which mentions deMause is not the same sentence that cjllw called our attention to, which I responded with that long Colin Ross quotation. This subject belongs to Aztec religion (though it’s a bit blurred now after Madman2001 inserted the Maya self-harming image; I have no objections about that image though).

On the other hand, the “psychological explanation” section which also mentions deMause belongs to the human sacrifice article.

I have been corresponding with deMause the last few days and incidentally I mentioned the wiki article on Aztec sacrifice. He seems to have read it, and he very briefly commented it: “My theory is that all wars, including Bush's, are for the purpose of providing the Killer Motherland with children's tears. Like the Aztecs”. I think I can find a printed source for this but I don’t want to make any changes until consensus is reached in the talk page about whether our fellow editors consider sufficiently notable psychohistorians’ views as to allow a short section on it (as short as it is today).

—Cesar Tort 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this discussion over to Talk:Human sacrifice in Aztec culture so that all can see it and comment on it. Please continue this discussion over there. --Richard 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II

It is a good idea, but all this sounds more and more as an original research. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be OR? Presumably the expulsion of Hungarians and the forced migration of Silesian Czechs are well documented historical facts. I'm not 100% comfortable with the proposed title but I think the topic is encyclopedic and I don't understand why it would be considered OR. --Richard 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion

Hi Richard, according consensus I made these changes [9] but Stor stark7 doesn't respect it. It is frustrating after two months of discussions, please assist. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't really say it is to consensus, as what are "natural causes"? starvation? and stating "suicides" as separate as if it were a common occurence and shouldn't be included as something forced upon them by the occupiers.

--Jadger 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's not consensus per my comments on the Talk Page. However, I think it is worthwhile for us to review the documents submitted by Tulkolahten and understand what the Joint Commission of German and Czech historians said. They claim 15,000 to 30,000 deaths. 12,000 recorded deaths + 6,666 suicides.

Please continue this discussion on the Talk Page. I prefer not to have extended discussions about article content on my Talk Page. It deprives future editors of the benefit of our discussions.

--Richard 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect Expulsion of Germans after World War II

There is the risk that we will have disruption from one anonymous troublemaker who is suspected to be a sock puppet of a blocked user (User:Serafin). Hopefully, he will not make any more trouble but, in any event, we should encourage anonymous editing per Wikipedia principles and therefore I think it is time to take semi-protection off Expulsion of Germans after World War II.

Thank you.

--Richard 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard. It will be automatically unprotected at Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:53:54 GMT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you explain what "automatic unprotection" is about? I haven't heard of this before. --Richard 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-clericalism portion of Anti-Catholicism article

Hi Richard. The material Dems110 removed from the Anti-clericalism portion of the Anti-Catholicism article is ambiguous and unsourced. It will need some fact to back it up.

By the way, congratulations for all of the great work you've done to improve the article. Majoreditor 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From Mstare88

Ok what is the deal? I edited the Jehovahs witness and hell articles. i thought that i was good they were not offending. They were appropiate and true. whay were they erased? I would like to talk to the person or persons that deleted those edits of mine. i tried to be apropiate and non-offending but i still get deleted.Mstare88 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First, a couple of hints on using Wikipedia...

1. When putting comments on a Talk Page, use section headings to separate new topics from previous ones. Thus, your comment above was added to the bottom of the "anti-clericalism" section above it. I could still find it but it's just harder for me to see it in the middle of discussion about something else. If you use the "+" tab, it will provide a "subject/headline" text box for you to type a section heading into. Or, if you want to do it manually just put == before and after your section heading. Like this ==From Mstare88==
2. Next, do you know how to view and read an article's edit history? If you are viewing an article, you can click on the "history" tab and see the edit history for that article. Thus, you can see what changes have been made after yours and read the edit summaries left by those editors if they entered one. The edit summary will give you some idea of why they made the edit. If you are not satisfied with the explanation, you can request further explanation either by leaving a comment on the article's Talk Page or the Talk Page of the editor in question.

Now, specifically about your last edits...

First, I want to congratulate you that your recent edits are far better than your earlier edits. You have dropped the unencyclopedic style of those earlier edits and that is very important. However, there still seems to be some dispute over the content of your edits. I can't say whether I agree or disagree with your edits as this is not an area that I know a lot about.

Let me show you what I have found out about your edits. I looked at your contributions using this URL and noted that your most recent edits were to Hell, User:Dtbrown and Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a side note, do not leave comments on people's user pages. It will annoy most people. You left a message on User:Dtbrown. It should have been left on User talk:Dtbrown. The user's talk page is on the "discussion" tab of the user page.

I'm not sure why you were leaving a message for User:Dtbrown. Although he/she is an active editor of Jehovah's Witnesses, your edits to Hell and Jehovah's Witnesses were reverted by User:Matt Britt. You might leave him a message on his Talk Page.

Also, I finally figured out what you meant when you complained about being blocked. By saying that you were being "blocked", you meant simply that your edits were being erased. The Wikipedia term for this is to say that your edits were "reverted" (back to the previous version). Being "blocked" means that your account is flagged as "blocked" and the software will not allow you to make edits to any articles other than your own user page and associated Talk Page. It is the way for an admin to say that your edits are so unacceptable that he/she feels you should be locked out of editing for a while. Your earliest edits were skating very close to the edge of being disruptive to the point of being considered vandalism and, if they had continued, could very well have resulted in your being blocked.

I hope this helps. I will be gone on vacation for the next couple of days so if I don't respond immediately, it's not because I'm ignoring you. I'll be back on Monday.

--Richard 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

anti JW?

on Matt Britt talk page you said that i am anti JW. its not taht i am anti JW but i do disagree with their teachings. also thank you for telling people to be nice to the fact that i am new. have a nice vacation.Mstare88 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic homogenizations

The Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II would be very useful. The process was more complex than just few expulsions, though, with the first signs appearing during the late 19th century, post-WWI attempt to speed the process, peak after WWII and slowly finishing it afterwards. The dissolution of Czechoslovakia could be seen as yet next step in homogenization, btw.

An article [10] (Czech Academy of Sciences, in Czech) gives an overview of the situation post-WWI, has quite a few tables and is written in scientific style.

Some post-WWI are data on Czech Statistical Office website, with nice graphs. The web has quite a lot of information, including estimates of population growth during the past millenium.

If possible the proposed page should be created complete at once. If it is left to random people to build it up by adding their own favourites here or there it would end up in the same mess as expulsion of germans was year ago. Pavel Vozenilek 22:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For always keeping your cool on contentious topics. Olessi 00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page comment removed

Hi there: I'm curious about this. Were you intentionally removing my talk page comments or not? Heimstern Läufer 05:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not intend to remove your comments. Looks like some sort of bizarre behavior where I managed to overwrite your comments without generating an "edit conflict". I have restored your edit. My apologies.

--Richard 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was guessing. We're good, then. Heimstern Läufer 06:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard.

Thanks for your contribution to the Raymond Franz article. I just wanted to ask you what is the meaning of the word "thusly" you inserted there. --Damifb 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, heh. I had my own doubts about that word at the time that I wrote it but I figured I'd take a chance. The intended meaning is "in this way". If you wish to change it, go ahead. I'm not committed to using it. --Richard 14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Christianity

Dear editor, I am sorry to disagree with your grammatical improvements. I am not sure what was wrong with what you altered. I hope you don't mind but I have removed AN Wilson to another section, not part of the introduction which is not normally the place for detail. Roger Arguile 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am sorry to have been so drastic but I want to make a number of points.

I am glad you find AN Wilson so helpful, but in inserting references to him I believe that you have misunderstood the article. It is not an article about all aspects of St. Paul's thought. It is about the use of a specific term usually mostly used pejoratively. Frankly, while AN Wilson is an entertaining writer, and sets out some of the reasons why some people think that he distorted the faith which Jesus taught, he is not best evidence. He is not a NT scholar and his assertion that St. Paul remained Jewish all his life needs so much unpacking that it is not worth much as it stands. The material on the Eucharist implies a knowledge of the mind of St. Paul which no scholar that I have read appears to have. The same is true of his view on kosher laws etc. St. Paul's own expressed reasons are different. I think your inclusion of the contention about the invention of the eucharist is helpful as is the reference to justification. Your reference to the end time is not merely Pauline but is very Jewish. Wilson's point about Paul not intending his letters to be scripture may be right - I think it is. but it is not really the point. The question is whether Paul, by whatever means steered the faith away from the teachings of Jesus. That is why I have deleted it.

Please respond if you have any dispute over what I have written.Roger Arguile 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have applied to be an administrator. That being the case I take it that you will not mind criticism. I don't think you have realised the difference in weight between the authors you have cited and the scholars otherwise refered to. That is, I fear, a lack of judgement as well as difficulty in understanding as to what the article is about. I would not normally write so harshly, nor am I very good at putting criticisms in the public arena. I note how editors often use vulgar language and hyperbole in expressing their differences of vie on WP. I try to avoid that, but I think your insertions betray a lack of understanding of the purpose of the article and of the way scholarly debate works. To have read a couple of books - one of them very light weight is not enough - not to realise that they are light weight is more serious. I do not think that at present you have the necessary perspective to be an editor. My hope is that you will not press your case. WP depends increasingly on people who are experts in the field. We should not tolerate amateur aircraft designers; the scope even for such part time scholars as myself will be increasingly marginalised if wP is to become a standard work of reference rather than a hobby. Roger Arguile 13:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My profound apologies. You are quite correct. I had made the assumption that it was you who had inserted the AN Wilson material, nmo thaving checked each edit. So much for my powers of scholarship! I shall indeed revise my view and insert it on the review page. A.N. Wilson is an English novelist who was once an ordinand in the Church of England. His novels include a satire on an English theological college under the title 'Unguarded hours'. I now notice that, as you say, your edits were conservative, much more so than mine.

I think that the anonymous editor has a point that the origins of the eucharist and the issue of justification by faith needs elaboration, though whether they feature in the development of the notion of Paulein Christianity I am not sure. My personal view is that it is a dubious article, but since there are a number of people, some of some stature who believe that St. Paul distorted the faith it needs an airing. I confess that I found it hard to believe that someone who been found to be a good collaborator by such as Lostcaesar, with whom I have worked, could have inserted so much undigested material; and I SHOULD HAVE CHECKED MORE CAREFULLY. Again, I apologise for jumping to conclusions. Roger Arguile 16:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The only point I would sustain relates to the grammar of the sentence on Gnosticism.Roger Arguile 16:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I continue to disagree but, as I said, it's a matter of style and not worth getting in a tussle over. The strange thing about writing is that we all think our style of writing is best. De gustibus non disputandam. --Richard 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

talk

if there are any JW's out there please visit my talk page and discuss why you belive thses things. I am a Protestent and would enjoy discussing these things with you. i would like to know more about JW's and maybe we can find common ground on some things. as well a maybe point out were either one of us may be wrong. please reply.Mstare88 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a JW but there are some points that I would like to communicate to you.

Putting these kinds of notices on people's talk pages is inefficient. Except for a few editors that I am working with on other articles, you will not reach many people this way and most of them are probably not JWs. If you want to ask a general question to a general audience, you need to find the proper forum. Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses would have been a more appropriate forum for your request.

However, there is one more point that you should consider... Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. See WP:NOT. If your discussion is not directly related to editing an article, then that discussion does not belong here at Wikipedia. I am sure there are other discussion forums on the Internet for discussing JW. You might find some of them in the "External links" section of the Jehovah's Witnesses article.

--Richard 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

possibly

I think that i might be able to. When i had talked to before that when i had gotten on to my account there were edits done to Xuyen Pham and JW. I had done edits to them but when i looked at the edits they were not my doing. and you and i both had the same thought that someone may have hacked my user account. I have learned that my past edits were extreme POV and i have done what i can to shed away from that. Even though i am not perfect and still have a long way to go before my edits can come to a point where they wont be erased. As i said in my one message sent to Natalie i think that i might know who coolman 76 was. if he is who i think that he is he is a freind of mine that lives in Dauphin. if i can be of any more help please ask. hope that this helps. have a nice day.Mstare88 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for the info on talking to JW's and for the links.Mstare88 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

i wnat to let you know that i am going to talk to him see why he did what he did.Mstare88 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor Comment

No need for thanks, though they are appreciated. I said what was true, that you're a good editor who spends his time adding information as best he can, without a personal agenda and do forth. I wish you the best of luck. Lostcaesar 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

new article

check out madden nfl '93 i created an article for it now i just have to see how long it stays.Mstare88 15:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

you're Welcome

you're welcome, and I truly endorse everything I said on your editor review. please notify me when you come up for adminship, in case I don't notice it.

and those latest comments on the expulsions: poland article were just off the cuff, I was actually having a little fun with Pan Xx.

--Jadger 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

autoblock

The autoblock is, as the name implies, automatic, and only lasts for 24 hours. So the autoblock on that user should have expired already. If it hasn't, I must confess that I don't know how to release an autoblock (it's a different process than a simple unblock), but there is a request for release of autoblock template somewhere. The user should have gotten instructions when they attempted to edit. Natalie 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I guess I should have read up more on autoblocks.

--Richard 15:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

unblocked Yes!

i am finally un blocked from the autoblock. Oh and i think that coolman76 wants to quit? i was just on his talk page and he said that he hates wikipedia and to screw you guys. i dont think that he is too happy about being bloked maybe you should try to talk to him. along with Natalie and yamla. maybe you guys can explain to him better why he was blocked.Mstare88 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He knows why he was blocked and he knows what he needs to do to get unblocked. It's not that hard but he has to lose his attitude. When an account looks like a "vandalism-only" account, admins tend to come down hard on that user.

If you are his friend, you can explain it to him. I have nothing more to say than that unless he wants to ask me questions in which case I'm glad to answer them as best as I can.

--Richard 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

was wondering if you could weigh in on this

On the advice of multiple admins, I asked for Serafin to be banned, it is a sad thing but I guess it needs to be done. I was wondering if you could weigh in on the matter at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#please_ban_user:Serafin

thanks

--Jadger 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

quote about Henlein from de Zayas

I recommend you to move the quote to the article about Henlein or SdP. Though I understand your intention, this is the article about the region and the last two quotes (one of them added to more than 3 articles!) are pure politics (if not propaganda). Honzula 13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

what happened?

I went to talk to coolman76 but his page is not there anymore.Mstare88 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

user:Serafin

After reporting user:Serafin for sockpuppetry...

# 16:47, 5 April 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "Serafin (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Continued abusive sockpuppetry, should not be unblocked for at least a year) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious on how a community-imposed ban would be much of a difference if hes already indef. blocked for socks? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's precisely my point. I think we need to "think outside of the box" and look for ways to redeem this editor rather than continuing to punish and ostracize him (which isn't working any way). --Richard 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice but is he interested in normal editing? For example, he has never contated WP:PWNB. He seems to be be a 'lone wolf' pursuing his own agenda, incompatibile with Wikipedia goals of reaching neutrality through mutual compromise...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can tell by now that I am an incurable optimist. My hope was and remains that Serafin will reform and become a valued member of the Wikipedia community. However, the reason that I acceded to the community ban is that I have to admit that there is scant evidence at this time that he has any intention of doing so. --Richard 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Long deserved

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your patience, persistence, neutrality and the quality of your contributions to the Expulsion of Germans and the related topics. --Lysytalk 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Second. Such neutral input is much needed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions

Hello, Richard, I was wondering if you could give some input at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I have been in a debate over whether the inclusion of thesection "acceptance within the JW community" is original research and whether the presentation ofit shows undue weight. If you notice from my comments in talk it is not the inclusion of the notion I am against but its portrayal. Please hep me as the half dozen others I have contacted are yet to show up.George 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on new page

Richard, just wanted to let you know I noticed and appreciated the large effort you put into creating the Pagan influences on Christianity page. Keep up the good work. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church

You wrote this In Orthodox religious terminology, icons are "written", not painted. Without expressing a definitive POV on your edit, I am orthodox, but I did not know this, the only term I heard in use is "painted". Could you, please, be co kind to provide some sourse, at least for my general culture. Are you sure you are talking about Eastern Orthodox Churches in general, and not only about the Russian Orhtodox Church in particular? I am under the impression that you are confusing the two. But I will let you say. :Dc76 13:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not orthodox nor am I an expert in orthodoxy so I could easily be wrong. However, try doing a Google search on "icon written" and look at the results that you get. The phrase "writing an icon" is very common. What I remember reading is that the word "written" is used to distinguish the act of creating an icon as something different from mere "painting". An icon is not just a work of art but something imbued with deep and sacred religious significance. Thus an icon is a kind of "sacred graphical scripture" which is, therefore, "written" not "painted". The last sentence is my own personal extrapolation based on what I remember reading. This is my understanding based on what I read. If you can show me to be wrong, I will accept correction.

--Richard 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, do a search on "icon written painted". Here is a link which explains what I said above but with some authority. --Richard 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance with user pages that have apparently been deleted

Hi,

I have unofficially adopted a bunch of new users who have been taking some time to understand what Wikipedia is about and how we do things here. One of them, User:Coolman76 seems to have exercised his m:Right to vanish. One of Coolman76's friends (User:Mstare88 asked me what happened to Coolman76's account and, of course, as a non-admin, I can only speculate. Are you able to look at the deletion log and determine what happened? I'm thinking that there might be an edit summary that says something like "User account deleted at user's request". I'm assuming that, short of a CSD, AFD or RFARB, there's no other reason for the account to disappear. Coolman76's account did seem to be a "vandalism only" account but I'm thinking that's a reason for a block, not a deletion.

Another "adoptee", User:9999a9999 found his Talk Page to have been deleted and recreated it with a query as to why it had been deleted. I left messages on that Talk Page a week or two ago so I know it existed a week or two ago. Can you tell me what happened?

Thanks. I'm just trying to help these new users learn how to become valued members of our community.

--Richard 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

• Coolman76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is nothing but a vandal. All his edits are considered vandalism as per Wikipedia:Vandalism. He was by admin Natalie Erin as a vandal only account. He made an unblock request but didn't give any reason for that aand therefore admin Ryanpostlethwaite whom i trust too much declined his request stating that [You haven't] offered a reason why the account should be unblocked.
• Mstare88 (talk · contribs) is probably a sockpuppet of Coolman76 as they have edited the same articles. However, i haven't seen any sign of vandalism from this account.
• 9999a9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another vandal and probably a sockpuppet of 55555five55555 (talk · contribs) (at least they are mates). Look at this sneaky vandalism 9999a9999 did.

My advice is that try to not waste your time w/ these accounts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

re:T.J. Anderson external link

I figured it was something like that. No problem. Rosencomet 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Gray betting issue

Richard, just thought I'd leave a note here rather than clog up the Bill Gray discussion page with something that's about me, rather than about him. You wrote:

"'a blog that has consistently, reliably published trustworthy material from authoritative sources has established a process that meets WP:RS more than a brand new print publication that claims to edit the pieces it receives' - Brian Schmidt

Yes, I agree but how do we know that your blog meets these criteria? What is the "authoritative" source for the phone call with Gray? You. And who are you? No offense intended but do you have any publications to establish your authoritativeness? Other than your blog? That's the nub of the problem, you see."

I assume Connolley considers my website reliable because he's reviewed it and it matches the information he has as an expert in the field (to the extent we're discussing betting anyway - as I said, I'm not an expert on the broader science issues). In other words, one has to review the source to decide whether it's reliable. As for whether I've got publications in the Journal of Climate Change Betting, I don't because no such journal exists, but my site has been cited to numerous times elsewhere. I think it's also relevant that lying about a phone conversation with Gray and leaving it on his wikipedia entry for a long period would be an extremely stupid thing to do, as any phone call to Gray can verify or disprove it.Brian A Schmidt 06:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Biography of William M. Gray - My Apology to You

Dear Richard - I am sorry that you became involved in this due to my ruse of apologizing to Connolley, appealing to his vanity, and attempting (successfully) to get him to reveal his understanding and willingness to appropriately apply WK:BLS to biographies of 'scientists opposing global warming consensus' [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus ]. Connolley is heavily involved as an editor and admin in the editing of many of these biographies.

Personally, I have no interest in the subject, other than biographies ought to be as professional as possible, and follow WP:BLS as closely as possible given the Wiki-system. It is a simple matter, for instance, to compare the Wiki bio to a Biographies.com, or NY Times, or Washington Post bio on Dr. William M. Gray and see the problem.

I picked the Gray bio to be involved in simply because it seemed such a egregious obvious violation of WP:BLS. I thought if I made a simple point here - "please follow WP:BLS" that it would be educational for the other editors involved. Ooops.

Similarly, the Wiki bios on living persons involved in seemingly all controveries (Global Warming, Enviromental issues, Energy policy, evolution/ID, the State of Israel) while sometimes passable, for the most part, are parodies of biographies, textual political editorial cartons, and vicious, tongue-in-cheek attacks. Sometimes tempered by a little NPOV and cooler heads, but often not. I'm sure you are aware of the problem, advocates camp on these bios and out-shout, out-edit those with less interest or patience. The result are embarrassing, and dangerous, for Wikipedia.

I have no idea how to fix the problem, nor do I have the time personally to be very involved.

A glaring point-in-case is the biography of Timothy Ball [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball ]. This bio erroneously denies that he has a PhD in Climatology (see intro) even though Ball is currently suing a Canadian newspaper for libel over this issue - at this very minute! The suit is part of the bio. Yet, reference #2 at the bottom points to a newspaper article in the Canada Free Press, which contains an actual scanned image of Ball's PhD transcript from Queen Mary College at the University of London [ http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/cover0207l.jpg ], which states "Timothy Francis Ball of Queen Mary College was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science on 26 October 1983 as an internal study. The Field of Study was Climatology and the thesis was ...[name of thesis ]." In other words, the summary of his credentials is VERIFIABLY FALSE, insisting that "Ball received a Ph.D.[2] in Geography from the University of London, England in 1983. [3]" even though it points to the mentioned RS which contains the actual image of the actual transcript! Admins and editors - heavily including KimDablesteinPeterson [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KimDabelsteinPetersen ] insist on this. The "reliable source" [reference #3] is that his PhD thesis is filed in the university's online library under 'Geography [Board of Studies]'. Ball could sue Wikipedia and Kim - and probably win. Were I a Wiki Admin, I would apply the WP:BLS section Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material to almost the entire bio and make the editors start all over again, only if they attested to having read WP:BLS thoroughly first.

WP:BLS exists not only to prevent libel suits, but to ensure that biographies are fair, decent, even handed, and informative to the general public, so that we may refer to them and have confidence that they contain only reliable verifiable (and hopefully, verified) information.

Do you think the Wiki-way can actually produce this kind of Biography?

Yes but it can be very difficult when people especially admins fail to follow the "Wiki-way" --Richard 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that "POV advocates" should "recuse" themselves from editing (talk all they want, but not edit) hot-topic bios?

Only if they are unable to maintain NPOV. Pushing a POV is legitimate to a point. --Richard 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - I am concerned that this Biography issue seriously harms the value of Wikipedia to the world. Already, academics forbid cites to Wiki - I suppose for this very reason.

Cites to Wikipedia should be forbidden in colleges and universities at least to the extent that cites to the Encyclopedia Britannica should be forbidden and maybe even more so because, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is broader and more detailed than EB but less reliable. Fixing the problem with Bios will not address the larger issue. --Richard 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do accept by apology.

Interested in your viewpoint. Sorry to be so wordy,

KipHansen 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to apologize. You didn't invite me into this. I jumped in because WMC's Talk Page is on my watchlist. I usually ignore most discussions on his Talk Page but yours engaged me. I intend to follow dispute resolution procedures but, frankly, this is not something I care that much about so I may drop it if the time commitment gets too intense.

--Richard 17:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

Hmm, that header looks familiar. :p Glad you like it. If you'd like any help getting some of those redlinks removed from it, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki

I saw your comment concerning the copy and paste jobs from OrthodoxWiki on LoveMonkey's talk page, and you asked for my opinion. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy where the creator of OrthodoxWiki has said that most of the content is GFDL, so all we have to do is add a link back to the OrthodoxWiki article. However, there are some articles on OrthodoxWiki that have other copyrights, so we need to look at each one on a case by case basis. The speedy tags have all been reverted for the time being. My biggest concern now is that text that was marked up for another wiki was simply copy and pasted here, creating a bunch of redlinks and categorization issues, not to mention the possible unencyclopedic tone and POV that may be presented in these articles. Anyway, just thought I'd drop you a response.-Andrew c 03:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have already been directed to the main conversation. I decided that the material (at least some of it) was not a copyright vio based on information provided by a pair of orthodox wiki sysops and a couple of our admins. Mangojuice has done a great job of getting everthing sorted out. -- Pastordavid 15:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism category

Since you have contributed to the anti-Catholicism article, I thought you might want to participate in the discussion on the category anti-Catholicism which is being considered for deletion here. Mamalujo 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have expressed my opinion. --Richard 19:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you fighting against me and misrepresenting my position on the anti-catholic category controversy? I specifically mentioned the word CATEGORY not ARTICLE. Why let the pro-censorship lobby have it all their own way? Colin4C 17:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

hey

hey just asking i am starting up my user page and want to know how do i put graphics on it like i see on other peoples user pages?Mstare88 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo of SPIs

Hi Richard. Did you see the photo of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence that Simonxag posted in the Anti-Catholicism article? I suggest that the Sisters (and their photos) are a better off moved into the article on anti-Catholic humor and satire. What's your thought? Majoreditor 02:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Its good to see you contribute, as usual. I won't say anything about the article, or its history, except that I stand by the changes as in accord with policy, and I look forward to whatever improvements you can add. My position has been one of NPoV, while maintaining a policy of reliable sources and no original research. Oh, and sorry if I haven't been able to help on some of those other pages just yet, but life gets busy, and all. Cheers. Lostcaesar 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I know you suggested we start on the Talk page, but you have no idea how much time I've already spent on the talk page trying to get the page to NPOV. I decided to be bold. I've rearranged the article following the direction that came from the Request for Comment (doctrine first, history second). I've added a lot of material, mostly in little pieces. It's a start, but it's not polished or finished. Jonathan Tweet 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think our edits conflicted - but sorry if there was an accidental problem. I will take your advice on the talk page matter. Lostcaesar 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is OK now but there was one point where it looked as if I had trashed more than half of the article and I was pulling my hair out trying to figure out what I had done to screw it up. I learned through a previous experience that leaving off a closing </ref> can instruct the WikiMedia software to regard the rest of the article as reference text. However, I couldn't find where I had done that and was really baffled for a few minutes until I discovered that the article text had miraculously recovered (perhaps because you overwrote my error). Anyway, I was seriously confused for those couple of minutes. Ah, the joys of Wikipedia.

--Richard 17:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I was hoping to hear more from you on talk:Purgatory. Could you please swing by and comment? Jonathan Tweet 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversions

Greetings. Nice to make your acquiantance, Richard. re: bible passages noted on Christian heresy, I argue that there must be a better place to put the information. The article seems to conflate too many issues--theological, sociological, political, interpretive, etc. And these are sentence fragments.

"Though Christ himself is noted to have spoken out against false prophets and false christs within the Gospels themselves Mark 13:22 (some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples), Matthew 7:5-20, Matthew 24:4, Matthew 24:11 Matthew 24:24 (For false christs and false prophets will arise). On many occasions in Paul's epistles, he defends his own apostleship, and urges Christians in various places to beware of false teachers, or of anything contrary to what was handed to them by him. The epistles of John and Jude also warn of false teachers and prophets, as does the writer of the Book of Revelation and 1 Jn. 4:1, as did the Apostle Peter warn in 2 Pt. 2:1-3:."

How would you clean this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandon cohen (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA poll summary

I saw your summary at User:Kelly Martin/RFA poll. Thanks for that. I didn't know about the Naconkantari situation, so that was new "muck" for me to wade through. :-) Carcharoth 14:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, there is another editor breaking consensus [11]. I do not want to start an edit war, especially when I am not involved and interested in the topic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^{≈talk≈} 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

History of the Eastern Orthodox Church

From the context of the article it looked to me as if the word "Assyrian" was being used as another name for the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is what the word "Syrian" in the article links to. According to the disambiguation page at "Assyrian", the word is sometimes used that way. I just now added some parens to clarify what I think the meaning of the sentence is, but I might be wrong. Feel free to link it or make any other edits you think are warranted. Incidentally, the "History of" article says the Church referred to was founded by St. Peter, but the Assyrian Church of the East article says it was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle. This helped convince me not to link the way you suggest.

I was really just trying to disambiguate a link to a dab page, so any edits you make are fine with me. Hope this helps. --Steven J. Anderson 05:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lostcaesar

Richard- You asked LC about his user page. Unfortunately, he has retired. In January, he said he was taking an indefinite break from editing religion pages. Too stressful, I'm guessing. He came back in February and overhauled purgatory, leading two a two-month dispute with me. Now he's gone again, this time requesting that his userpage be deleted. I'm hoping he'll return. Jonathan Tweet 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. That's really too bad. He made a significant contribution to Wikipedia, especially to the History of Christianity. Unfortunately, he is also rather passionate and strong-minded so the push-and-shove nature of collaboration at Wikipedia is perhaps more stressful than he is comfortable with. I'll miss him and I also hope he will return.

Thanks for the update.

--Richard 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

hello

guess who. I'm Back! HaHa.Coolman7.0.00 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I hope you intend to edit responsibly. --Richard 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

John 1:1

Thanks for all you rinput on the JW realted articles. While I did not get what I wanted out of your invovement in JW's & blood your inclusive style might help out with this article. AJA keeps trying to remove well referenced information I have included in the article. George 04:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Well" is another relative term, I see; so, for that matter, is "information". A.J.A. 05:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::I'm confused. Which article are you guys talking about? I don't think you're talking about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions because I don't see any recent edits from User:A.J.A. there. --Richard 05:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured out that you guys are talking about John 1:1. I'll take a closer look. In the meantime, can you guys cut out the edit warring? That sort of behavior leads to blocks and page protection. --Richard 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and made some changes for compromise. I did this before I noticed followup on this page. George 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For getting involved, I was getting frustrated :) EnviroGranny 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and blood

Since you've been around for over a year, you should know that it is disruptive to make edits which turn a major assertion on its head without discussing on the Talk Page first to develop a consensus. I have reverted your edit. In the future, please discuss such edits on the Talk Page before making them.

--Richard 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for fixing my little mistake there. Hope your Editor REview goes well and is helpful. When you do your RfA drop me a line and I'll leave my (hepfully helpful) input! Felix 18:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Heemeyer

This text is the same as the text I left at the other folks you were discussing the matter with. Richard, it would have been much more polite (instead of merely reverting) to actually attempt dialogue regarding this matter- especially given the alternative of dumping it into the laps of several otherwise uninvolved people. The discussion at hand isn't just a "Marvin was a hero" piece of cruft- a user had some rather serious complaints about the tone of the article, which was what his post was regarding. Statements like "How can you not take this into account in the way the article is written?" and "This article does no justice for a man" might betray a lack of NPOV on the editors account, but do convey a legitimate question as to whether or not the article has followed the proper point of view. The edit certainly wasn't vandalism, and it also wasn't off-topic- the user posed a question on the talk page that was ABOUT THE ARTICLE. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, if you want to, despite the fact that I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't try to talk to me about it before bringing in uninvolved outside folk. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Request your opinion on proper use of article Talk Pages

Hi Richard. Both of you are half-right. The poster is pointing out to the POV problems but they fail to stay objective.

Well, you could have reached a middle ground by contacting each other on the spot (you and User:Ex-Nintendo Employee). They could have explained to you why they believe that the anonymous poster got a point. And you could have explained to them why you believe that the comment was miles away from being objective eventhough it was about the subject of the article and what the policy tell us about that matter. (i.e. talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.) source/WP:NOT

I am not sure if it was a matter of AGF between yourselves but i am sure it was an issue of the lack of communication in this case. I'll leave the same comment to User:Ex-Nintendo Employee. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Dimming

Your edit: the most likely cause of global dimming. -> a likely contributor to global dimming.

The primary cause of Global Dimming IS thought to be global brown clouds - moreso now in places like China and India. Did you read the papers? Perhaps you can re-word your edit. Kgrr 13:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

I would like to discuss with you some precision regarding number of missing people during expulsion. (I am little bit interested personally, because my Forefathers were Germans, who suffered after WW2 though difficult to say, if not without reason.).

It is known to historians that group of people who performed the calculations in Germany in 1950th did do on the demand from politicians. In matter of fact, they fiddled with numbers to count all people that were unaccounted as a casualty. In matter of fact many people slipped through statistics, like my predecesors, who simple lived on the false identity. (In matter of fact, family of 7 is included in the number of 1.1 mio missing). Please, let us discuss the best way to precise the numbers. Cautious 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your participation is appreciated

Richard, I hope you are not discouraged from helping with editing efforts where I am active. The thing from yesterday about moving text to my talk page, it's nothing. If for whatever reason you think me sour, I'm not. Things happen. Life goes on. We all need each other. I find your input objective. Regards, Marvin Shilmer 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Marvin. No, I'm not discouraged from editing because you're active. It's more that I think I've put in as much as I have to give on the lead of Jehovah's Witnesses and now the discussion has gone around in circles for the umpteenth time and I have nothing new to add and I'm just waiting to see how this drama will play out. --Richard 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We all sit in the gallery of life. It's an amazing theatrical. I just wanted express that your editing and observations are appreciated, well received and, from what I see, objective. Regards, Marvin Shilmer 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Revivalism

Richard, could you please look at this comment regarding the "noncompliant" tag? I think you're more knowledgable than I am in this area and can make a better decision about the tag. --Steven J. Anderson 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott Campbell

Well spotted on the Scott Campbell front. I have made a change breaking the wrong link .:: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Evacuation

Would you care to take a look at German evacuation during World War II, hopefully copyedit and/or expand it ? I've tried to create the stub based closely on carefully selected sources that I had at hand, and avoid all the opinions as well as individual accounts of the witnesses, to avoid any POV-related bias. Hopefully we could try to keep it that way. I plan to expand the article with more details about the actual evacuation plans. I also lack information about evacuation from Bohemia. --Lysy^talk 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to help but I do not know a lot about this topic. One critical question that I have is: I understand that there were fairly detailed plans for the evacuation of Germans but, in the end, the evacuation was chaotic and disorganized. Why?

I think the answer is that the orders to evacuate came too late and that civilians and military units were both fleeing the advancing Soviet troops. But why was that? Was it over-optimism on the part of the Nazis? Did the Soviets suddenly pick up speed by making some breakthroughs in the German defensive line? Did the Wehrmacht suddenly fold and begin a disorderly retreat rather than an organized one? Was there a propaganda reason why the German authorities would not order a retreat until the last minute?

I think these are important questions to answer for the reader.

--Richard 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as far as I understand, the reason was the Nazi "propaganda of success". I will try to find sources to support this. Imagine how many lives would have been saved if the Nazis capitulated months earlier, when it was already obvious that they have lost the war ... I have also found interesting information about Polish-Soviet mutual relations of the administration in the territories East of O-N line, which shed some new light on the fate of Germans who were trapped in the middle there. --Lysy^talk 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Sorry I have read your comment after our reverts. Let try to be intelligent and civil about this sensitive matter and let's use one article's talk page and not crosspost the same messages. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Our positions are not that far apart. I appreciate your good faith efforts. I hope I'll have more time later. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians - thanks for your comments

Richard, thanks for your constructive comments and actions on Persecution of Christians. I am on vacation until early next week and won't be able to contribute much until then. Let me know what I can do to help when I'm back. By the way, did you notice how someone just removed the persecution in Israel section? I have restored it. Majoreditor 04:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Persecution

Dear Richard, I am sorry that I took a hatchet to the paragraph. I reacted to the expressions to which you adverted in your response. Please feel free to restore it. I confess that I am unable to respond to your request to help with the article for a number of reasons. I am not convinced that an article on persecution even of early Christians stands by itself; but even if it does statements such as that the NT is not a reliable source beggars belief. The NT is not one source but 27; the canard about objectivity assumes that there is such a thing as unbiased comment; the historicity question has been debated more effectively elsewhere; Acts has come in for serious criticism (and defence). Both extreme sceptics and dogmatics muddy the waters. I sometimes wonder whether some of the editors have any serious historical background.

However, I notice that there is a book on the subject by W.H.C. Frend who was a somewhat sceptical but reliable writer. I try never to write on a subject unless I can reach for a book on the shelf behind me to verify what I write. I don't use websites except for initial research. Very often they are misleading.

Finallyt, I wish I could help, but I really have no wish to engage in internecine word wars with enthusiasts who never seem to back down and who are insufficiently specific for one to know whether or not they know what they are writing about. Sorry to be unhelpfulRoger Arguile 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Expulsions

Regarding Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII, this seems a rather odd approach to the topic. It's not as if the wielders of power in 1945 sat down and said, OK, for this and this and this reason, we are going to expel the Germans from territories east of the Oder-Neisse line. But there were antecedants to the Expulsions, which one may recapitulate:

— The Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, under which the Soviet Union annexed eastern Poland/Ukraine.

— Nazi-German occupation of the remainder of Poland, and atrocities pursued against the Poles during the occupation.

— Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union and subsequent atrocities pursued against Soviet citizens during the war.

— Stalin's refusal to consider returning eastern Poland/Ukraine to Poland, and his determination to "compensate" Poland, or Western opinion about Poland, by giving Poland much of eastern Germany.

— Churchill's early (1943) endorsement of this territorial "compensation," which he referred to at the first Big Three conference in Tehran as making Poland take "two steps left" (see my paper, page 7).

— The inability of the Western Allies to compel Stalin to follow any other course in territories the Soviets occupied militarily at the end of the war, and the disinterest of most Americans.

— The "devil image" (Kennan's phrase) assigned to all Germans in many Western minds as a result of enormous and unprecedented Nazi-German crimes against humanity, along with the concept of "collective guilt" (page 9 of my paper).

None of the above is exactly a "reason" for expropriating, killing many and expelling the remainder of people of the German nationality from their homelands east of the Oder-Neisse — homelands which it is crucially important to remember were part and parcel of pre-Nazi Germany — but all of the above led to policies that resulted in those acts.

Nothing in history occurs in a vacuum. The Expulsions — by which phrase I include the expropriation of all Germans east of the Oder-Neisse and the torture and murder meted out to millions of them — would not have occurred had it not been for the war Hitler began on Sept. 1, 1939. Hitler and the Nazis, however, never would have occurred as a political phenomenon had it not been for the Versailles Treaty, which Hitler forever harped upon during his rise to power. The Versailles Treaty never would have occurred had it not been for WWI and its millions of casualties (nearly 2 million in Germany). WWI probably never would have occurred had Germany been led by an enlightened monarch, such as Frederick III, who died of throat cancer in 1888 after only 99 days as emperor, and had Germany been a liberal democracy, as the "revolutionaries" of 1848 hoped. Instead, Germany in the late 19th century increasingly came under the sway of reactionary nationalism — which probably wouldn't have happened had Napoleon not subjected much of Germany to occupation and part of it to annexation in the early 19th century. Napoleon probably wouldn't have come to power had it not been for the French Revolution. And so on, and so forth....

None of the above exempts Germans who committed inhuman atrocities during the Nazi period from responsibility for their crimes. However, my view is that the crimes of these Germans, and they were many, do not exempt the Soviets and Poles from responsibility for what they did, either, though we may consider extenuating circumstances and human nature. It's all part of the human capacity for inhumane treatment of other humans.

I don't think this kind of rambling response belongs on the topic page you referenced, where it probably would engender emotional arguments from others. Consider it food for thought. Sca 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view.

I think the issue is that the "reason" for doing something has two meanings. In one meaning, it is the justification offered for doing something. In another meaning, it is the motivation for doing it. One justification offered for the expulsions may have been the collaboration of some Germans with the Nazis while the motivations might have been revenge against the Nazis, territorial expansion, etc. etc.

For example, the justification for invading Iraq was WMD and the War on Terror. The motivation may have been to change the balance of power in the Middle East.

--Richard 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I've posted a new comment for you (and others) about the expulsions on my talk page.

Sca 15:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentor (Redsox04)

It would be greatly appreciated to have some guidance here at Wikipedia so therefore I accept your offer. Could you help me get adminship. If you would, just tell me specific things I need to do to become an admin. Redsox04 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read your response and would like to say that my desire to become an administrator is because of one thing, to better Wikipedia. But I do see your point about how that is frowned upon. Many times, RFA voters would view that like I was "rushing into adminship" or something. When I asked you to help me become an admin, I did not mean that I wanted a quick way in or anything but just for you to help me clear a path for adminship. In case you haven't noticed, many actions and edits on my behalf had been violations of codes (impersonating an administrator and so on and so forth). Thanks again.-- Redsox04 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Your recent and once again removal of my contributions

More Richard talking one thing but doing another. You removed the information from wikipedia period even before I could even source the rest of it[12] The information was sourced and I need to you to give me the wikipedia article size cap so I can work towards compromising the truth to make it fit into this supposed cap. Ol Richie editor in chief for a bunch of Eastern Orthodox Christian articles, gee thank God that we have all of these other people writing our articles for us and then when we speak for ourselves we get censured. And constantly nagged your worse then a mother in law with Tourettes.
All this might be funny if your writing were better or at least I have the excuse that my pony in the race is that I AM ORTHODOX. You really have no excuse. Period. Your edits are disjounted, rehash that other people wrote and obviously misguided (i.e. size cap where is this policy? or removing details of human rights violations?). I have yet to actually read anything that you have in fact wrote. That is accept your opinion which you seem to value ever so highly. Your copy and paste is just regurgitation and at some point the original content that you keep removing is actually what is needed by wikipedia. I am sure you will say other wise but Richie you have my attention now. I make mistakes sure but I have limited time for free the content that I have created is not verbatum nor is it OR. But it is there and you have yet to show me that you have an understanding or knowledge of these Orthodox subjects beyond what you read here on Wikipedia let alone why you think you and your opinion should take primacy over any of it. Hey explain that. I am fascinated why you think that you should be editor in chief of articles about something you almost nothing about let alone something you are not culturally nor personally involved in? LoveMonkey 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of personal attacks in your comments above. I will respond where I think it is productive to do so. If it seems unproductive to respond, I won't respond.

You wrote:

You removed the information from wikipedia period even before I could even source the rest of it.

I've responded to this on your Talk Page. I don't think I removed it and since I don't own the article, you are welcome to add it and then source it. If I dropped the text in question by accident, I apologize.

I realized after writing this that there may have been different interpretations of the word "removing". I did indeed remove text from History of the Eastern Orthodox Church because I was moving it to Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I would prefer that the text in question not be added back to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church because I think that it is "excessive detail" for an overview article. This is, however, a judgment call over which reasonable people might have different opinions. --Richard 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

I need to you to give me the wikipedia article size cap

There is no "hard" cap on article size. However, you might wish to read the Wikipedia guideline on article length. Here are some points excerpted from that guideline.

With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size.

Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues. It is instead treated as a guideline, and considered on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the article.

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects.

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (see above for what to exclude in size calculations):

Prose size	What to do
> 100 KB	Almost certainly should be divided up
> 60 KB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 30 KB	Length alone does not justify division

At 82kb, History of the Eastern Orthodox Church is getting close to the "almost certainly should be divided" threshold and is well outside the 30-50kb "readability" range

At 47kb, History of the Russian Orthodox Church is getting close to the "probably should be divided" threshold and is getting close to the 50kb upper end of the "readability" range

IMO, it is time to stop adding to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church unless it is very important, very high-level overview material. Anything else should go into subsidiary articles.

It's a judgment call whether your edits should be put into History of the Russian Orthodox Church or a subsidiary article.

My philosophy is to have lots of subsidiary articles rather than long articles. You might disagree but that's natural in a collaborative effort such as this one.

You characterized me as a self-styled "editor in chief for a bunch of Eastern Orthodox Christian articles". I do not consider myself to own any of these articles. I readily admit ignorance of the subject matter. The model that I like is WP:BRD. I express my opinion by being bold. If you disagree, your opinion counts as much as mine. Not more but also not less. Revert me if you feel you must. If we cannot resolve an issue, we should discuss it first and then seek the opinion of others if our discussion does not result in a satisfactory resolution.

As for the rest of your message above, I'm sorry that you have such a negative opinion of my edits to the articles that we are working on together. If you feel that I have behaved inappropriately, you are welcome to ask for a third opinion. Or, if you are convinced that we cannot resolve this through further discussion, post a request for comment on me.

--Richard 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You may not think so but you did also you had time to remove them but you don't have time to restore them. LoveMonkey 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that when I just now scanned the diff of my edit, it seems that I didn't delete anything but just moved some stuff around. The only thing that I am conscious of deleting is that there were a couple of years in the text which looked like they had been copied from a table. I deleted those because I was in a rush and it didn't look like it was critical to save the years.

When I finish answering your message above, I'll try to look at your original edits and see what I dropped if anything. If you wish to be helpful, maybe you could identify for me what you think I dropped and I will restore it if it wasn't just moved.

--Richard 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you are an admirable editor. You have always been cool headed, and you always back up your positions with well thought out arguments. I do not believe you have done anything wrong. LM, on the other hand, responded with personal attacks and insults, got overly defensive and reactionary, clearly lost his cool and any attempt to assume good faith. There is no reason on wikipedia to say "your worse then a mother in law with Tourettes". None. There is no reason to attempt to exclude other editors from editing topics based on their religion, and there is no reason to try and exhibit ownership of articles. None. Editors with a difference of opinion should be able to work civily together. However, it seems like if anyone gets on LM's wrong side, insults start flying, censurship accusations are hurled, and any attempt for a civil dialog or compromise is lost in the melee. I commend you for how you have reacted to this situation inspite of LM's behavior. As an editor not involved in the conflict, I thought I'd lend you my support. Keep up the good work. And if LoveMonkey reads this, please please please calm down, let things cool down, and please examine your own editing behavior and how you went about confronting Richard. Would you honestly behave like that to someone in real life? say a fellow member of your church? Please try to work with other editors, and asssume good faith. Richard has a remarkable track record here on wikipedia, and I do not believe you are giving him the benefit of the doubt, or even trying to listen to his position. Insults are never, ever appropriate on wikipedia. Hopefully, everything will be resolved peacefully, and a working compromise met. Thanks.-Andrew c 14:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

With Andrew c posting here on your page what can I say. I mean he knows more then Professor Charles Hill about the professor's own opinion to edit it out an article where the guys works is seminal. [13] and then when he has to finally accept that the guy is (at least for right now in the year 2007) one of the most current and respected scholars about the gospel of John and other Johannine text. Andrew c here then completely distorts what the Professor actually states in his works [14] and then insists on a page number for a summary of the works [15]. Good endorsement. You guys are just wow. LoveMonkey 05:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin time?

It seems like you have been putting forth a lot of hard work in getting to the point where you will be an excellent admin. In fact, I think its been a long time coming. Would you mind if I nominated you at RfA?-Andrew c 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to accept your offer. How should we proceed? --Richard 02:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[this was a template, so disregard contacting me]-Andrew c 13:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I wanted to nominate you! I'll have to settle for giving you a strong support. If you wish to mention mentoring me in your achievements, go ahead. It's fine with me. By the way, the box above appears to be improperly formatted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to co-nominate and add a comment to the top of the RfA page.-Andrew c 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, are you ready for the RfA to go live yet, or are you still working on your answers?-Andrew c 17:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow. It was a busy weekend complicated by the fact that my wallet was stolen yesterday so I've been busy cancelling credit cards and making a police report. I'll try to wrap things up in the next day or two. Thanks for your patience.

--Richard 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh jeez, sorry to hear about your loss. Please take your time. I just wasn't clear if you had finished or not. I know you know how to list it with the others once you are done, so I don't even know why I'm bugging you. Carry on.-Andrew c 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, my RFA is now live. In retrospect, I guess I could have delayed a little longer in order to let you be the first to support. However, I trust that this is a minor issue and that you won't be too miffed at me for putting it live and letting others support before you. Thank you once again for your glowing nomination. --Richard 08:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck, Richard! I know you will make a wonderful admin. Majoreditor 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for fixing the Waterville, Maine article. Some of it, like the rotting YMCA building is funny, but true. Most of the other stuff needed to be cut out. I asked the other person to stop it but they did not listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevw (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. Next time consider using one of the warning templates from WP:WARN. If he does not stop, he will be blocked. --Richard 01:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one placing those comments on the Waterville, Maine board, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. Who are YOU to determine what's appropriate for an entry? I happen to live in Waterville, have lived here all my life (I'm 54), went through its public school system, worked in its downtown, and even worked for its city government. I think I'm more than qualified, as a Waterville taxpayer, to include the TRUTH about the city. Why candy-coat it? The City has fallen on hard times, and every piece of info I placed on that site is the truth.

I'd be interested to hear your argument about why the truth shouldn't be printed.

Yendor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs)

Yendor,

I understand that, living and working in Waterville, you consider yourself a reliable source about Waterville. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia's standards, you are not. This is not to cast any aspersions on you. I'm not a reliable source about my hometown either.

Please read WP:RS and WP:V. The "truth" about Waterville should be included IF it can be supported by a citation to a verifiable and reliable source.

Besides, even if what you wrote is true, it can be cast in a more neutral tone. See WP:NPOV.

--Richard 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have answered your question Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin Heemeyer

Hello... saw your note re: the talk page. It's a tough call - on the one hand, I can see your point about the comment. On the other hand, however, the IP editor in question is a very low-edit contributor whose edits - all today - are POV, vandalism, or a mix of both, including a very racist edit here. In cases like this, I'm not particularly inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Anyway, thanks for leaving a message for the IP. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiMexico Class Project

Thank you for responding to my message about my class project! I figure that the best way to go about this is to learn how to write and submit an article in Wikipedia... that means I will have to do one myself! However, I dont feel that I should do one on Mexico as I am not a native Mexican (I just kinda ingratiate myself over here hee hee hee). Maybe an article on my native NJ or something like that.

I realize that I will be the first and primary resource for my students as they figure out how to do this themselves. To that end, Ill need to be something of an expert. However, if you or any others involved with WikiMexico want to help out as a kind of online mentor... that would be great too, esp. if you guys can read article drafts and comment on the context (what is acceptable or not). It would carry a lot more weight coming from Wikipedia than from me all the time.

While the final project is a new article to submit, in the third evaluation period, I want them to learn their way around Wikipedia and do some minor contributions like adding citations and other things... what other things, fairly easy to write, do you suggest? I thought about translation, maybe an English article into Spanish. Is this something Wikipedia needs?

More pertinent to me right now is to learn how to get around on here.

What a masochist I am!

Thelmadatter 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Leigh Thelmadatter leigh@itesm.mx or osamadre@hotmail.com

original research

About Waterville, Maine, I think it's an ok place. It's the other person, Yender (or similar name) that thinks the place is a dump. Come to think of it, I can see why he thinks Waterville is a dump.

I looked up original research. Wikipedia says "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." My data of Skowhegan and Kennebunk is not made up. I got it from Wikipedia! So it is published, it's not an argument or theory.

I don't care one way or another. No need to discuss this with me or leave a comment. Just do what you what to do!Spevw 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward H. Simpson

Hey, I don't know many admins so I'm asking you to block 218.215.1.128 if you can as he's been making unsuitable comments on Edward H. Simpson Thanks

Greenharpoon 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Greenharpoon

Thank you for your message.

First, I am not an admin (yet) although I may soon be granted adminship.

Second, even if I were an admin, I would not block 218.215.1.128 because he has only been warned once. I have left him a second warning. We believe that users should be advised of Wikipedia's policies and warned appropriately before they are blocked. If he continues to vandalize, he will be blocked.

--Richard 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :D

• (diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Requests for adminship‎; 18:56 . . (-158) . . Warofdreams (Talk | contribs) (closing two successful RfAs (Crazytales, Richardshusr) and one unsuccessful (Hdt83))

Many congratulations, Richard. I trust that you'll make good use of the buttons. – Chacor 11:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New Article

Excellent idea! Chaldean would be an excellent resource for the article. Understand though that there is a group of Pro Turkish nationalist who will "challenge" the accuracy of the article. I will help as best I can but I think that the idea is very much so to the benefit of Wikipedia. LoveMonkey 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding warnings left at User talk:Yendor1152

Until you're an actual administrator and have REAL power, I see no reason to follow your dictates.

Yendor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs)

Yendor, I have responded to this on your talk page.

--Richard 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, now I are an admin and you better follow my dictates or I'll block you to kingdom come!

No, seriously. Just follow Wikipedia policy and you'll be all right.

Adminship is no big deal. I hope you will become a trusted contributor and maybe even submit your own RFA someday.

--Richard 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Germany

I added some information here. Would you please review it? Thank you in advance Aborvegyro 08:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Have a look onto the dicussion page of the lemma. Regards Aborvegyro 08:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the discussion page.

What's a lemma anyway? Is it one of those creatures that likes to throw itself off cliffs?  ;^)

Please look at the Germany article. There is no entity called "Germany" prior to 1871. This has been discussed at length previously. We can re-open the discussion but it is not a discussion between you and me. There are other editors who will also have opinions. Please refrain from restoring your edits until a consensus has been formed.

--Richard 08:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

About Your Comment

Unless you haven't noticed (which you probably have,) that I.P adress has edited " Edward H. Simpson" 3 times. Maybe he just doesn't get that he shouldn't be doing that but I understand that administrators or others didn't give him a warning (as you usually do.)

Congractulations again,

Greenharpoon Greenharpoon 10:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Greenharpoon

I have warned him again. Are you aware that you do not have to be an admin to warn a user? See WP:WARN.

Feel free to let me know if the vandalism continues. However, you will probably get faster response at WP:AIV.

--Richard 17:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lemma/lemmata

In 2007 lemmata don't use cliffs any more No offence meant! Aborvegyro 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Page protection and WP:SALT

Hey Richard!

Saw your notes on WP:AN, and I tried to respond clearly. If you have any other questions, or something isn't clear, please feel free to ask. Best wishes and happy adminning, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, congrats, and don't worry, you're doing fine. Anyone whom User:Andrew c speaks well of (as at your RfA) is sure to be a solid citizen. I've found the admin learning curve to be pretty steep, so it's always better to ask for help, as you did. BTW, time to update your "would like to be an admin someday" userbox! MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit

The category that you are trying to introduce doesn't exist. See your edit summary. The Hybrid 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was corrected. The Hybrid 01:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Doug Roberson

Hi Richard, I've been maintaining the Diplomats of Solid Sound article and noticed that a Doug Roberson replaced all of the long-standing text that had existed about the guitarist from the Diplomats. I noticed that you deleted the article while I was pondering how to deal with this. I agree with your assessment of his vanity article. Would it be possible to restore the original Doug Roberson article that existed prior to May?

thanks! Mike Roeder

Done. However, I am not convinced that this version of the article is encyclopedic either. It may still be nominated for deletion. --Richard 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Richard

hey, Jadger here, just popping in to say hello. it seems I still have a fan as by the repeated editting to my userpage. How has wikipedia been? I've been taking a stress leave from wikipedia, as it seems to get the best of me sometimes. Is Serafin still a problem? what's been the major occurences since I last was on in May?

As you can see, I have supported your RfA, just as I said I would (lucky I decided to catch up for old time's sake when I did) but it seems you have enough support from lots of others already. Just goes to show that you are a far better person than most people on here are, as I dont know of anyone who has a better history on here of keeping a level head.

best of luck, and do fill me in on the big happenings since I've been gone (if you have the time, what with your soon-to-be-new admin powers. --Jadger 08:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jadger,

Thanks for your support. It's good to see you back. I was wondering where you'd gone.

I'm sorry 131.x.x.x was being such a jerk on your user page. He seems to have stopped finally, thank goodness.

Wikiferdi has been pushing the German POV over at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII but I'm not too happy with the stances that he's been taking. Maybe you can look over there and tell me whether you think he is making valid points or not.

Also look at the section titled - Separating out discussion of "Eastern territories of Germany" from discussion of "Poland". I think we have to do this in order to be able to keep the numbers as clear as possible.

Finally, I could use your input on a discussion that I have been having at Talk:Territorial changes of Germany with User:Aborvegyro.

Best regards, Richard

Alright, I will look into it later, although I am going to try and limit my editting as I dont want to get sucked back into wikipedia quite yet (the summer is still young, I dont want to waste it on a computer). Just an FYI, when I editted in the past at the same time as wikiferdi, I usually just skipped past what he wrote, because to me, he was a bit extreme and I didnt agree with many of the things he was saying. How is your summer going?

P.S. lol, I see that minutes after I had noticed your RfA on your userpage you took it down, good timing eh?

--Jadger 09:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OMG!!! seriously, I was just randomly rambling through the wikipedia, and I found such a horribly POV article. here is my edit difference [16] just so you can see, and put that page on your watchlist, for some reason I've got a feeling someone might want to revert back to that horribly POV version. calling the Germans "the enemy" and talking about the heroic fighting of the soviet men and women, who fought for months after they were all dead.

--Jadger 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

annexation of Alsace-Lorraine

Hey Richard, I know in lots of places accross wiki and the less authoratitative internet it says that Nazi Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine, but I have read a number of sources that it was never annexed in order to entice the allies to agree to peace treaty easier.

here is one source that says so, you can find many more from a google search:

For years Hitler tried to counteract the danger from the East by concluding an alliance with Britain. The Naval Agreement by 1935 and the waiving of claims to Alsace-Lorraine were, among other things, an earnest of the intentions of German foreign policy; they showed that Germany was ready to make sacrifices. But Britain could not be won over. She regarded Germany's growing strength, not as a reasonable correction of Versailles and as a safeguard against the East, but only as a threat to the 'balance of power'.[17] that is on that page farther down, point #7, a statement that von Ribbentrop made in his defence at the Nuremberg Trials. Surely he would not make up something like that in such an easily checked source.

I think the reason for the common mistake is:

Nazi Germany's tendency to annex lands with German population (Sudetenland, western poland and Austria)

The Wehrmacht drafted soldiers of German ancestry from Alsace-Lorraine (same as in Luxembourg)

what do you think? want to help me on this?

--Jadger 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jagder,

I think von Ribbentrop is talking about "waiving of claims to Alsace-Lorraine" prior to 1939 (i.e. Hitler was hoping to neutralize Britain prior to 1939 so that he could go after the Soviet Union). My Google search seems to indicate that Germany did in fact annex Alsace-Lorraine after the conquest of France.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765008,00.html

Encyclopedia Britannica says the same thing

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9005909

--Richard 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm, interesting, seems I was wrong then. I just remembered hearing it a bunch of places, then when googling it, skipped past the wikipedia mirrors and most the garbage on the net and found that site. I've been in a bit of a lazy mood lately, and it is the long weekend (happy Canada Day Richard!) so my brain is shut off for the next 96 hours while I consume vast quantitities of alcohol and launch gunpowder projected flames.

--Jadger 10:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Congrats. I really missed the nomination!!! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good cheese

'Twas vandalised. May not be a notable web-comic but is wasn't nonsense until a short while ago! I restored the good version. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mary Starrett

Hi. You recently deleted Mary Starrett. Can you get that article back? I put a delete tag on a category she belonged to, but only wanted the category deleted. Do you have to delete all items on category pages unless you want them deleted? Thanks. Tim Long 23:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Culturally missing the mark?

Hi your new category is sort of off the mark for australia - we dont call them that and the media dont use the term - any specific good reason why we need such a category? SatuSuro 08:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles were already in Category:Spree shootings so it was really just and organizational issue to put them in

Category:Spree shootings in Australia. I've been moving the ones in the U.S. to Category:Spree shootings in the United States. We seem to have the misfortune of having had far more of these here than you do Down Under. Nonetheless, you seem to be the second most unfortunate country in this regard (with Canada being third).

All that having been said, can you suggest a different name for the category?

--Richard 08:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies I put message first - and then I did check Port Arthur article ( a troubled article at that) and saw it had preceded you and indeed you are clarifying the issue. Having an aversion to the issue on the short term - I have no sufficiently constructive alternative at this stage - so please continue and I shall contemplate the issue - but suspect I have no adequate alternative at this stage,sorry SatuSuro 08:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an administrator - and with pretty much unanimous support! If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Warofdreams talk 11:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate you too. You had as was said above, pretty much unanomous support. Good luck! Politics rule 11:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Richard. You'll be a great admin! Majoreditor 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA, Richard! You deserve the mop, and I believe you'd do a wonderful job as an admin. Would you mind helping me when I need an admin? By the way, you should update your userpage by removing the {{rfa-notice}} template and the "Preparation for submitting an RFA". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of updating your userpage, you may want to remove {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} from your /Userboxes page.-Andrew c 17:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. I forgot about that one. --Richard 17:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Richard Congractulations and I hope can help improve wikipedia even more. Also, thanks for reading my messages so quickly. I thought it would take you 1-2 weeks

Greenharpoon 09:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)greenharpoon

June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 08:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul B 22:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)==Sub-saharan Africa== There was really no reason to protect the Sub-saharan africa page. We are dealing with an article that has been hijacked by afro-centrist, unscholarly radicals. The information in it is absurd, and definitely UNENCYCLOPEDIC. I merely added a critic to the critique section and corrected some minor info. The fact is, it is impossible to form any sort of consensus with those editors as their problems arise not from merely the distortion of facts but from a much deeper psychological source. How are we to correct this article now? It was not even an editting war, as no one broke the 3 RV rule. Their inability to accept fact is not something that I can remedy. All I can do is correct the false information and add some clarifications. Mariam83 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nordic theory

Richard, I realise that protected versions of pages are not endorsed, but I am concerned that the protected version preserves the prefered version of the sockpuppet of a banned neo-Nazi whose version is rejected by all other editors. He has no incentive to build consensus if his version is preserved by the protection. Paul B 22:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul, if you can show me that the "preferred version" says something really atrocious such as "Jews are proven to be subhuman", I might consider choosing a different version. However, as far as I understand policy, admins are not supposed to pick the version that gets protected.

What I would counsel you to do is to follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. Ask for a third opinion, issue a request for comment, etc. Try to form a consensus with or without the sockpuppet's "buy-in". Run a survey to see where people stand. If there is a documented consensus that the sockpuppet is editing in opposition to, then there may be other ways to deal with him. However, without evidence of such a consensus, it's impossible to say which version is the "right" version. Admins are supposed to protect the "wrong" version, anyway.

--Richard 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoop! I see another admin unprotected the article earlier on the grounds that the "troublemaker" has been blocked indefinitely. I guess that solves your problem. Good luck and happy editing.

--Richard 03:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Periyar

Please protect the page edit war going on until disputes are resolved Helloarise 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rogers Vision

Hello, I would like to note that the Rogers Vision article was put in place to provide information about the service suite, not as a means of advertisement. As may have been noticed, a merger into the Rogers Wireless article was proposed by myself as of last week. Calvinhrn 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First, please put new messages at the end of Talk Pages, not at the top. That is the convention and it is very confusing when editors fail to follow it.

Second... yes, I did see the merge proposal. However, there was relatively little content in the Rogers Vision article and I figured that it would be easy for someone to re-insert it into the Rogers Wireless article even if I deleted the Rogers Vision article. If you do this, do try to make the text sound more encyclopedic and less like an advertisement.

--Richard 06:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Modern Africa

I have nominated this article for deletion. I am unsure if i have done it correctly as last time i did this i made a mistake. I would also like to draw your attention as an admin to this page which i believe is a religiously motivated article, i also believe those working on it are coming from a similar aim and thus reflective of the NPOV and the aggression at defending this aim.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 08:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

American films

Please please!!! help fill in List of American films. Even if it is just a few details it all helps -any contribution you can make will be more than appreciated!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard!

I tried to include a stub yesterday using the stub template (for paganism). But it got deleted. Obviously I did something wrong. Can you help me?

Thelmadatter 16:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Constantinian Shift

Alright Mr Richie the Administrator the theory of Constantinian shift is one that appears to be based on a Euro-ccentric set of historically inaccurate prejudges. Please review the article and help me word the Criticisms part to address the whole mess as best as possible. Here look I am even asking with a --please. LoveMonkey 17:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Congratulations. LoveMonkey 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations. I will do my best to be a fair and impartial admin.

I have looked at Constantinian shift and I'm not sure what the problem is. The one question that I have is that the lead attributes the phrase to Anabaptist and Post-Christendom theologians. I guess that's sort of OK but it relegates the idea to fringe groups and I'm not sure it's quite as marginal as that.

What is your concern? Are you saying that there was no Constantinian shift? Or, are you saying that there was nothing wrong with the Constantinian shift? I think everyone agrees that there was a Constantinian shift. I think the disagreement is the historical assessment of whether it was good or bad. Some people see it as the cause of 1600+ years of corruption caused by secular concerns about power and wealth. The history of the Western church, especially the Roman Catholic church, would seem to bear this out.

In a nutshell, this all seems to boil down to a question of separation of church and state. In the West, it is widely held that church and state should be separated because the interactions of church and state are seen to be the source of civil strife and religious warfare. In the East, I suspect that there is less concern about church and state and, in fact, I suspect that the integration of church and state is seen to be a natural and desirable state of affairs. I'm speculating here; as you know I'm not an expert on Eastern Christianity (or Western Christianity for that matter)

--Richard 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! True. I was hoping for it to be reworded to be more concise. Also the church has never not been in a struggle or under some form of conflict. Martyr-dom has never ended. As for your comments on my talkpage. You see there is a great gulf of misinformation that has cause great enmity between peoples. One side is told the other is not. Arianism fought a war with early Christians churches. It was an innovation. Arius tried to use what scripture he had an also this faint tradition to supercede what was "a given" to the common Christians of his era. Christianity did not have a canon to debate and read from and refute heresy with. Since you at least now are starting to understand. Let me ask this. The heresies that were Pre Ecumenical were not "suppressed". Think about how different your understanding would be if this was taught in the West. These heresies never went "away" they are still part of the communities of the East even today. PS it is a sin to provoke or enjoy suffering or calamity. LoveMonkey 19:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh. This is a much bigger issue than I thought. I don't have time today to give this the thought that it deserves. I'll try to respond more thoughtfully in the next few days. --Richard 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[18] Hey now this is quite famous it is called the "frangopapas" slight. As for the Greek history you chopped as well as the Jewish-Greek history all of this critical for a clear understanding of the actions of the first Christians. An understanding of Hellenism and the Roman presents in Israel during the time of Christ ARE CRITICAL. You have removed as concise a historical context for the founding of Christianity. Your smarter then this help me find a way to add the history with what we have to get rid of the more wordy parts of the article. From here out lets try and keep all the edits to specific articles on there respective talkpages. LoveMonkey 01:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the talkpage to your deletions.[19] LoveMonkey 13:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly wrong

You deleted the page HMP NZ, for the reason that it was rubbish actually it wasn't rubbish at all, it was based on fact, the fact remains that the HMP still exists today, working from five different countries America, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan and South Africa . The HMP do exist this is not a mock story or even a story at all, it was mearly me trying to show the people of the world the underground politics of New Zealand from the information i attained from the party members themselves.

So pleas put the page back on.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.234.102 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, no. I looked at the content again and, even if it's not false, it's not clearly notable. If you disagree, take it to deletion review.

--Richard 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and Buddhism

Richard, what this article needs is various points of view about Christianity and Buddhism (as in a comparison) from various scholars and notable people - If this cannot be found, this article should be trashed. WhisperToMe 17:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We may continue it here, since I am willing to watch :) WhisperToMe 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so do you believe that the citations in Buddhist influences on Christianity are not to scholarly works?

--Richard 17:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the sources shown, but from my impressions of the article, the sources are extremely lacking and the citations are not proper. For instance, remember the block of text I removed? I will remove it again, as there is nothing cited (Yes, I should have attached an explanation).

See, Wikipedia:Verifiability - Official policy

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

WhisperToMe 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I object to your deletion because you are deleting from the lead section which is summarizing the content of the article, most of which has a fair amount of citation supporting the assertions. However, because the summary does introduce some new concepts (e.g. New Age literature) I will accede to the deletion until such time as I can provide citations for the summary.

Besides which, I intend to write a new summary soon which will give you another opportunity to delete text.

--Richard 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The best tactic is to cite the same source for the summary AND for the text within the section. Be sure to read Wikipedia:Lead section to help with your new lead section :) .

WhisperToMe 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

German evacuation during World War II title

What do you think about the title of the German evacuation during World War II article ? --Lysy^talk 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems OK to me. I'm a little befuddled by your question because the title seems so unobjectionable to me that I wonder if I'm not missing some nuance that would make it controversial. I suppose it might be better to title it Evacuation of Germans from Central and Eastern Europe during WWII in order to limit the scope to the Eastern Theater rather than to include the Western Theater (where, I presume, there wasn't any significant evacuation).

While we're on the topic, I think the text should make a more explicit linkage to Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII rather than just leaving it as a "See also" link.

--Richard 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I still consider it a stub, and I also consider "Flight and expulsion ..."

to be a parent article, so "see also" seemed a natural way to link back. As for the title, Benjar explains in the article's talk that it seems too broad. --Lysy^talk 22:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sorry about my mistake; semi-protecting that page for two weeks; I'll make sure in future I'm more careful with protecting pages; thanks for clearing it up by changing the duration to 2 days. Acalamari 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A welcome-and-warning you left

Just a heads-up to let you know that I have deleted a welcome-and-warning message that you just left for a user. I had already blocked the user indefinitely as a vandal-only account coupled with the fact that on his userpage he announced that he was a "PROUD WIKIPEDIA VANDAL." I had deleted the userpage per WP:DENY, but in retrospect I should have replaced it with an indefblocked template instead to avoid this type of confusion, which I'll remember for next time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Mourning Dove

Hi Richard; I noticed you protected the above article. I was a bit surprised; MPFAs aren't generally protected at all, being so visible and a starting point for many new users. The vandalism was quite manageable, barely so much that protection was warranted - only the past 20 or so edits have been reverted. If there is no objection from your end, I will unprotect the article in some time. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richard, I know it's a pain in the bum but I've only very rarely seen MPFAs protected (eg Islam a few weeks ago, but that was pretty much inevitable). Thanks, and I hope you don't mind. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 06:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Riana. Actually, my original protection was changing from the full protection for two days put in place by User:Tariqabjotu to semi-protection for two hours for exactly the reasons that you quoted. Based on your comments, I unprotected the article for edits. I left the move protection in place.

--Richard 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Quixtar

I am relatively new and am not aware of detailed policies of Wikipedia yet. My intention is only to prevent people from deleting corporate websites which are not proven to contain any inaccuracies. and the header says it clear that they are corporate websites so even if contents are wrong, I guess readers are intelligent enough to understand that the contents of the website are published by corporation itself. So why should some Wikipedia editor decide if the contents are accurate or not.

What is anon IP? Please help me if I am violating any Wikipedia policy. In my opinion deleting the corporate website is wrong no matter how many people like or dislike it.

And thank you for protecting the page75.73.188.53 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An IP address is a four-octet Internet Protocol address like 75.73.188.53. An anon IP editor is one who does not login to a Wikipedia user account before editing. The article is semi-protected which means that only editors with established Wikipedia user accounts (more than four days old) can edit. This means that you can't edit but the other editors with user accounts can. If they choose to revert your last edit, you won't be able to revert them back.

I know this may seem unfair to you but my review of the article's Talk Page suggests that you need a cooling-off period. My other alternative was to block you but I wanted to avoid doing that if at all possible.

I don't know if you are the same person as User:12.104.244.6 but, if you are, you have violated Wikipedia's 3 revert rule. As a general point, I think you should consider creating a Wikipedia account. That will put you on an equal footing with the other editors. However, continued edit warring will lead to the page being fully protected so that no one can edit. Some editors may also get blocked. Try not to be one of them.

--Richard 06:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not questioning the fairness of having more privileges to registered users. almost all websites have that. I asked for your help to let me understand what is my fault other than not registering as a user. I have reverted the deletions which are unjustified and were deleted without any logic or consensus. I dont know how IP address is assigned to person and not sure if 12.104.244.6 is also my IP address. I thought IP address are unique for each website.

I will request you to please take some time to review the deletion as well as discussions regarding those corporate links. I will approciate if you point out my mistakes and correct me if I am doing anything wrong. 75.73.188.53 07:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of contention is debatable. The links could be left in or they could be taken out. I would lean towards the side of David D. and ESkog on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a "link farm". See WP:NOT. The bottom line, however, is that it's not my position to decide the merits of the dispute. My goal is to stop the edit-warring. Read WP:NOT, take a break from the article and then re-read the Talk Page. Perhaps you will get a better perspective of what the other editors have been trying to say to you. Perhaps not. In any case, please desist from the edit warring. --Richard 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Richard, I'd like to take the opportunity to communicate a few things, including a response to some of your queries of me:

• First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for being the voice of reason so often in this debate. More than that you pointed out use of policy in the Deletion Review - i.e. you seem to be the only editor who has some kind of extensive knowledge of wikipolicy - something I thought was a prerequisit for adminship. More over you are the only person to utelise policy properly in the deletion review. You have also taken great care not to 'side' with me, (or conversely outrightly oppose me) and have coloured yourself clearly in the middle as some sort of impartial. All in all it is very refreshing. I'm keen to award you some kind of barnstar so long as it wouldn't look like brown-nosing. It also follows that if you're capable of such analysis of the wikisystem that you might well be suitable to be an artbitrator.
• I don't know what to say. Not really sure what to do. I see some major injustices committed here. Personal attacks by an admin (you'll find a record of 5 in my deleted "Evidence" page), the wrongful speedy-deletion of an article, and a bunch of admins that equate an RfC with an attack page. More than that everybody is blending issues a lot. People (including various admins) cannot stick to the issue at hand.
• Notwithstanding the insight you have demonstrated into a variety of these matters, you (along with just about everyone else) has failed to note something, consider some of your comments:
  • "Rfwoolf, the door to a peaceable solution is to submit User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching for deletion review"
    • You said this on my usertalkpage in the context of the deletion review of my "Evidence" RfC page. The problem is that the Anal stretching article basically has nothing to do with that "Evidence" page, or the deletion review. Therefore that is not a "peaceable solution" on that issue. Not serious I know, but it's important I communicate right now that the current deletion review is about.
  • ""Rfwoolf should focus on rewriting his pet article which we can facilitate by undeleting the content if he wishes to work on it in his user space."
    • Just want to make sure you know that the article *was* restored to my userspace at one stage, and was re-deleted by JzG. Furthermore, should the article not just be recreated as a stub and let the general community build on it? Why should *I* have to recreate an article that was pretty good to begin with? Granted, references are a problem, so let's put up a no-references template/tag to tell everyone so - the admins that deleted it never did that and IMHO deletion procedure should include templates for these kinds of things! But yes my actual response to you on the Anal stretching talkpage was I'd like some time to think about exactly what I want to do with Anal Stretching - for example I have an admin that thinks it should never have been deleted in the first place, I have an admin that thinks the deletion review was wrong, and I'm bruised because if you do restore the article to the talk page it will probably get deleted again.
• I would like to ask what I should be doing about the current deletion review. Your comments are very insightful, but have been ignored. Should I place a RfC requesting people to look at the deletion review? I also need to know how long the article will stay in Deletion Review before it is closed (or speedy-closed by Radiant or Nick) ?
• Finally, I want to point out both Radiant and Nick seem to be biased on this. Radiant is calling everything I say a "personal attack", and seems to passionately believe my "Evidence" page was a personal attack (even when it was so nicely worded and so *not* an attack). More over, the user Nick keeps on threatening everyone. He's threatened me, he's threated ATran, without really contributing anything constructive - as if he's the admin overlord. He's said to you "Oh do shut up". My point is that in addition to having the issues we were already faced with (JzG's incivility, an RfC article, a speedy-delete, a deletion review, not to mention the restoration of Anal stretching) we've now got a hostile admin (Nick), and Radiant that seems to misunderstand the subject matter substantially. What happens with admins like these?

I apologise for a lengthy post, but I shall be happier if you have taken the above in cogniscance. Your input and feedback is always welcome. Thank-you Rfwoolf 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yes, one important question I wanted to ask you - this is in part hypothetical, and a genuine question: Is the current Deletion Review worth taking to ARBCOM? ..simply because their is cloudedness over whether RfCs are attack pages or not. I am more than aware that there is a quick-fix for this: they allow me to make a personal backup of the deleted "Evidence" page and I allow the page to be deleted, and this way we don't waste ARBCOM and everybody's time. But when you get these apparent injustices committed by admins such as Radiant (speedy-deleting an RfC page) one has to ask oneself, is there ANY justice on Wikipedia? So perhaps the hypothetical answer to the question is "Yes, ARBCOM *might* be interested in a case like this, but the most economical thing to do is to let it slide. Rfwoolf 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We are in danger at this point of losing JzG/Guy altogether, and I am very, very close to summarily closing the DRV as deletion endorsed (which I almost did last night), re-deleting the "evidence" page summarily, and putting up with whatever the consequences might be. If you would accept allowing the page to be deleted and just drop this matter, that would be really, really appreciated by quite a number of people. Newyorkbrad 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • While I honestly appreciate that JzG is more of an asset than a liability, we are faced with a series of philosophical issues such as *admins being held accountable for their actions *civility *NPA *cenorship *Deletion Procedure *Wikijustice *My right to collect evidence (and decide whether or not to use it, and not have to be forced to use it) *Deletions following correct procedure. More over JzG is old enough and mature enough to decide for himself if and when he wants to return and on what level he wants to return. It is also worth noting that he is probably on some kind of wikibreak, and will return when he's ready - he's probably just burnt out or overstressed. I very much doubt that I am going to "make or break" his decision on whether or not to return to Wikipedia, and even if I am, that's hardly my fault if I'm merely holding him accountable for his actions. And to be absolutely 100% crystal clear, keeping an evidence page on an issue he did is not ipso-facto me taking him to ARBCOM or anything. Deleting the page prejudicially and unfairly, if anything, is probably going to force me to hold him accountable for some of his actions. So believe it or not, being just and fair on this one is the way to go - by unfairly deleting my evidence page it's not actually going to help JzG, if I decide to hold guilty admins accountable for its deletion.
      
    • In closing, I like to think of myself as a just and fair user (errors and omissions excepted), and if the normal deletion review said the page should be deleted then I would have accepted that. But speedy-deleting it prematurely, prejudicially, and unfairly, is something I'm going to fight for. In fact it wasn't even me who listed it for Deletion Review - although I probably would have anyways. Looking at the deletion process policies, it also recommends that I should have reported the speedy-delete to AN/I. I'll do that if you think it's a good idea Rfwoolf 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Rfwoolf yes, I realize that you have grievances over and above the deletion of Anal stretching. The problem, however, is that all of these come down to the fact that you were badly treated and can't seem to let go of it until you receive some sort of redress. This is not helping the project.

It would be really good if you would just let the personal insult part of it go and focus on the one thing that might help the project which is improving the Anal stretching article. I've seen the discussion between you and JzG regarding the substantive references which were all medical journal references. With some effort, a decent article could be written about Anal stretching but it would be from a medical perspective not a sexual pleasure perspective.

That is why I focused on saying that the "door to a peaceable solution was to ask for Anal stretching to be undeleted".

I fully support your right to express your grievances in your user space, in an RFC and in an RFARB. However, I don't think this is worth the effort for you or anybody else. Worse yet, it just creates more drama pissing everybody else off (including yourself because I doubt you will get the satisfaction you want).

Wikipedia is ultimately just a bunch of bits floating around on a disk drive on a server somewhere in Florida. In other words, it's not real life and, even if it was, this still wouldn't be worth that much effort. Go take a walk in the park, play with your kids or read a good book. Then ask yourself if this is worth the time and emotional energy that you've wasted on it. Not to count my time and energy and those of all the other editors who have gotten involved. I have been defending your rights on principle but, in practice, I think you ought to "get a grip" and "get a life".

--Richard 16:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad It's unclear whether your message was addressed to me or to Rfwoolf. If it was addressed to Rfwoolf, I endorse your request with a few comments which are provided below. If it was addressed to me, I will yield to the consensus expressed on the Deletion Review page which despite my opposition looks like "Endorse" or at least "No consensus" which I guess is the same thing.

It's wrong though. Radiant! went out of process with the speedy and the deletion should have been resolved via MFD per policy.

My major comment is around your opening statement "We are in danger at this point of losing JzG/Guy altogether". I'm sorry but I don't really give a rat's ass about losing JzG. If he really thinks this kind of thing is too much for him to cope with, then I guess it is too much for him to cope with. This is just drama from someone who feels that he can be as obnoxious as he wants because he's a "valued member of the community" and somehow feels that the burden of living in community with the rest of us is just too much to bear any more.

Well then, @#$% him. He's being a drama queen just as much as Rfwoolf is. Don't try to make me feel like we need to accomodate or coddle him just because his contributions are worthy or because some other senior Wikipedians like him. There's more contributors out there and we will get more and better contributions if we can show that we enforce Wikipedia policy for everybody. Even admins and even "long-time valued members of the community"

I'm sure he's been and is a valued member of this community but he is a repeat offender against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Seeing people I respect like yourself and Radiant! defend him is problematic for me. On the one hand, it makes me stop and think that maybe JzG should be cut some slack because I respect the two of you a lot. On the other hand, it makes me think that there really is something broken when people like you two let JzG skate on this kind of thing.

The result of you and Radiant! arguing for JzG has frankly made me lose some respect for both of you. The solution to these kinds of situations is to stifle both sides of an incivility war, not to stifle one side and let the other skate. ARBCOM does a pretty good job of handing out admonishments and sanctions on both sides of a dispute. That's not happening here.

Except that it would be a huge waste of time and energy as I noted above, I almost want Rfwoolf to file an RFARB just so that we can try to get an official admonishment to JzG to cut this kind of stuff out. It would do the project an immense amount of good if that message got delivered to JzG. All this support from JzG's admin friends just reinforces his sense that his conduct is acceptable. What justification can you give for saying that it is acceptable?

I'm not saying that we have to block, ban or deadmin him. But why can't we apply steady, gentle pressure to get him to reform his ways? Just say "We know you were provoked but this is not an acceptable response to provocation." Or is it?

And, finally consider this: I have close to 10,000 edits and have been here for over a year. Have I earned the right to be a surly bastard yet? If not, would you please let me know what the criteria are for achieving that? Is there a Request for surly bastardship page that I can read so I can understand how to achieve that status?

Sorry for venting and getting a bit hyperbolic but I think you guys need to understand that there is indeed a bit of hypocrisy going on here.

I'm reminded of badlydrawnjeff whom I liked but also thought was a bit too strident during the aftermath of the Carnildo 2 RFA. I'm sorry that ARBCOM had to come down on him and I'm even sorrier that he decided that he couldn't cope with Wikipedia. I'm sorry to see him go but policy trumps the huffiness of any one individual no matter how much we like him or how much they contribute.

At least, I think it does.

--Richard 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for your comments on my post. My inquiry was, indeed, meant to be addressed to Rfwoolf, and in retrospect probably should have been placed on his talkpage rather than yours; but I'm glad to address the points you have made.

Far be it from me to endorse "surly bastard"ship as my style of choice to be adopted by editors or administrators. I don't conduct myself that way, and I don't appreciate when anyone else does either, as I believe my conduct for the past year has made clear. I appreciate the fact that you are not a "surly bastard" and would not support your, or anyone else's, choosing to become one or act as one. By urging that retention of the specific page that is subject to the pending AfD/DRV is not in the best interests of the project, and indicating that I was considering speedy-closing the DRV as an inappropriate use of deletion review, I wasn't in any way endorsing every jot and tittle of JzG's behavior in this or any other matter. Evaluation of JzG's specific comments or actions in the underlying deletion dispute was far removed from the point I was making.

On the other hand, I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that the appropriate response to the announced disgruntlement and departure, temporary or permanent, of an experienced contributor is "f--- him, he's being a drama queen." I've never been much of a fan of the meatball:goodbye approach to these things in general, and I think that characterization you have offered is particularly undeserved in this instance.

All of us are volunteers, and all of us self-appoint ourselves to different roles in this project. JzG signed up, for whatever reason, to deal with some of our most intractible and ongoing issues, addressing problems ranging from spamming by commercial enterprises and promotion of diploma mills, to interacting with users with extremely rough edges who have been involved in both on- and off-wiki issues of the most serious nature. A series of attacks against him and his family last year arising from an edit war about the accreditation of a medical college remain the most depraved episode of harassment and trolling that I have ever seen either on Wikipedia or anywhere else (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher), and it is a wonderment that he didn't give up on us right then and there. More recently, his willingness to address the challenges presented by two extremely problematic situations has been well above and beyond what any reasonable user could have expected. Guy has put himself in harm's way for the project more than once, and is entitled to a certain amount of respect for that. Yes, of course, I would prefer that he not have conducted himself exactly as he did; but then again, I don't see any of us more mild-mannered types signing up to do some of the things that he got done, either.

If even someone with the veneer of surly bastardship like Guy has finally been driven to the end of his tether, then that is a very unfortunate thing for this project; and I submit that the days in which he is presumably re-evaluating his willingness to remain involved with the project are not the time to be remonstrating that he should cuss less or give second chances more, nor is it the time to be fighting to retain pages attacking him as a matter of principle, nor is it the time to hypothesize an arbitration case against him. I am sorry if this is perceived somehow as catering to drama, or as an undue expression of "administrator friend[ship]" between me and an individual whom I have interacted with occasionally on-wiki and have never met; it wasn't intended that way, and I'd be interested in whether that's how others who might see this thread might perceive it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see... thanks for the explanation. That's a lot of information that I was not aware of. I rather imagined his service to Wikipedia being more in the way of editing articles which is important but does not excuse bad behavior. Without excusing or condoning his behavior, I do at least understand the desire not to pile on him just now. Maybe doing so at a later time would be more appropriate. I do think it is important, however, to recognize that editors like Rfwoolf and ATren have a valid point about Guy's behavior and that the community's response should be cast in the sense of clemency/pardon rather than acceptance/condonation. That's why I advocated admonishment rather than any of the harsher sanctions. --Richard 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just an afterthought, while an RFARB right now would probably be a major annoyance to Guy, I can't see that undeleting Rfwoolf's Evidence page would be that big a deal. Rfwoolf is too stuck on principle but the point should be made through standard dispute resolution channels (like an RFC) than by just squelching his grievances. --Richard 19:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may just say a line or two: Your comments here have been received by me with great interest. I would like to re-iterate that I still believe that JzG is certainly more of an asset to Wikipedia than a liability. Notwithstanding that, it is hardly my fault if I defend a page that was unfairly speedy-deleted - as somebody said adding fuel to the fire. More over, your comments speak of a certain amount of sentimentally, which should at no point override fairness and wikipolicy. Admins should be accountable for their actions. Users have a right to collect information about other user's actions as a recourse in and of itself - so that one day when the scales tip, the evidence can be used to show a pattern of abusive behaviour. Like I said, not my fault for defending an unfair speedy-delete. I have made further comments above Rfwoolf 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kish

Dear Richard,

I completely agree with you! This is what I have proposed Grandmaster to do - I told him to provide an Azerbaijani scholar. Where the problem lies is that the sources on the church of Kish are next to non-existent- they are very few. Therefore, the claim that I provide only one source makes no sense, especially since everything Karapetian states is backed by citations. Other than the existence of Kish, every other coverage will be made from the few sources which exist about the subject.

In this case what made me angered me is that Grandmaster has thrown mud on scholars by claiming they were Armenian. On the above he quotes some irrelevant racial slur. I actually had no problem with adding other sources - my problem was with him removing sources by claiming that the writer is Armenian, but, but he would keep a source by a religious figure from an institution in Azerbaijan. It is the sort of source which should be removed according to rules. It is like using as sole source on the American revolution some mathematician and not a historian. Not to mention, none of the information from opposing sources are backed by citations as Karapetian.

If you read Grandmaster’s replies you will see that he is still continuing slandering Armenian scholars. Only by being prejudicial will someone use another Armenian scholar to then generalize and attack the scholar which I have provided mostly because of his ethnicity. I am not the only user who told him to stop doing this, and he refuses to stop. Grandmaster is also claiming that both sides can use history as political tool and therefore he prefers avoiding both. By doing this he is actually avoiding Armenian scholars not both. Armenians over represent themselves on scholarly work on the region, while there are very few notable Azerbaijani scholars. If you scroll down this page, you will see that I have told him to provide an Azerbaijani scholar and that he could quote him but he did not. He rather continued discrediting Armenian scholars with OR.

And to make things worst Ehud who I very strongly suspect to be Adil Baguirov, a banned user will do nothing to easy suspicion and pursue reverting. If you follow even the member (FrancisTyers) to whom Ehud reverted to, reported him suspecting him to be indeed Adil. So for those reasons, I prefer for now leaving dispute resolution and not contributing in this article because I have to admit that I could not assume good faith with Ehud and that Grandmaster will be using this as evidence to have me. So I will wait and see what the arbitrators will think of Ehud in ArbCom; if they believe there is not enough evidence to assume bad faith, I will assume good faith. I know this may seem awkward, but I hope you understand. If you want to mediate you are welcome to do so once the arbitration ends.

Thank you for your time. Hetoum I 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being the only admin who bothered to look at this case on its merits, and treated both sides with the respect they deserved. I leave you this as my last act here. ATren 00:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing us for more than just trolls and grudge-holders. You are one of the few admins I still respect on this project. ATren 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript articles

Hi Richard,

I'd love to simply merge the individual papyri into libellus, and acutally I think that may happen over time. At this stage, I know that even POxy 2990 is still only a stub, as is libellus. I haven't located the story of how they date three of these papyri to the year 250, one in the months of June and July! I haven't included the texts of the other libelli and the warrent for arrest.

I imagine libellus could actually grow to be a GA, even an FA, were the theological debate to be adequately documented (I know Cyprian wrote a fair bit about the issue. It was a big deal, especially in North Africa. I'm sure you are right that the individual manuscripts will never be FA, but nor are disambig pages.

If you look at the Perseus site, and consider that there are more than a thousand manuscripts from Oxyrhynchus Papyri documented there, not to mention at least a hundred other major publications of papyri, you will see how "encyclopedic" and notable the whole area of papyrology is. The question is, how does Wiki report all this material? In a single article on papyrology? In single articles on each major work? In single articles on broad categories within each major work?

I have never considered the alternative of Wiki Source for the text of individual manuscripts, especially when these are in languages other than English. It sounds good, and I'll investigate it further. At this point though, each manuscript that is getting an article should have: link to an image of the ms, reproduction of the original text, a translation, links to relevant articles within Wiki. That sounds rather more than the documentation typical of Wiki Source documents.

I presume there are many documents at Wiki Source (say the American Constitution) that have articles at Wikipedia, in addition to existing in raw form, with no context, at Wiki Source.

I really appreciate your approach on this, i.e. asking the author first. I'd rather put time into researching additions to the articles, however, than in defending them at AfD. I've supported merger or renaming of info I've put up at Wiki before, but I've also defended articles at AfD. The ones you have identified have more general application and interest than others I've successfully defended. I recommend you wait a week for me to develop the articles and then reassess. Meanwhile I'll be seriously considering starting the other dozen or so other articles I'm planning in the area at Wiki Source, and only putting up the article once I've entered the source and drafted the article in my User space.

Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I've added a bit to POxy 3035, which is actually featured at the Oxford Uni site. There's more coming for that article and the others. They'll all be more substantial than Libellus soon. Though, of course, libellus has considerably more room for expansion than the others. Thanks again for your new page patroling and your interest. Cheers. Alastair Haines 04:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Want to save the article?

Hey, Shusr (If that's your family name), if you wanna save the article, why not rework the citations? They seem bare. Use page numbers (and if they are public domain works, link to the works themselves). Make sure every point is cited. Also make sure it is NPOV in every way. I have a feeling that the title needs to be changed. Also make sure that the people making viewpoints are deemed significant (As per Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight) WhisperToMe 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, ToMe (if that's your family name), my family name is Shu. The Sr signifies "Senior" as opposed to "Junior".  :^)

The problem with me trying to save the article is that I didn't write the original text. Most of the original text was written by others and I'm just trying to push it towards a more NPOV stance. I'm doing the best I can but it's not easy since I don't have the sources for the citations. I'm doing the best I can with the citations that already existed in the text.

--Richard 06:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to take out sections that cannot be cited - sometimes less is more. Also, Shu, remember that, as per Wikipedia:No original research, that a synthesis of published material to advance a viewpoint is not allowed. Think about the statement and avoid coming to conclusions using published material; instead find reliable, significant sources and simply report about their conclusions. WhisperToMe 06:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing, "ToMe," is a pen name ;) - You can call me "Whisper" if you want (Again, it's just a pen name) WhisperToMe 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Poland, revisited

I created a related article which you may find interesting: Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions. Currently it is rather stubbish, but I'd like to expand it, including a more detailed description of Austrian partition and Prussian partition.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

I wish to point out that I do not endorse JzG's recent incivility, and that I am not simply unthinkingly defending him. However, I believe that Woolf's approach about the half-year-old deletion of an article he contributed to would be ineffective at best in resolving this, and counterproductive at worst. If people want an RFC about JzG's incivility, it should brief and to the point, not a ten-page rant with cherry-picked quotes from policy. I would really like Woolf to focus on the encyclopedia content instead of reinvigorating an old dispute; however it seemed from his response that he was intent on giving the latter priority over the former, and I do not think fostering negativity like that is at all helpful. Yours, >Radiant< 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to simply chyme in here 1 or 2 things that remain quite important: 1) I have done very very little (in fact nothing) about the deletion of Anal stretching lately. My only actions recently have concerned an Evidence page in my userspace. It is quite frustrating to read your comment "I believe that Woolf's approach about the half-year old deletion of an article he contributed to would be ineffective at best in resolving this" - and so what are you talking about? the deletion of the Anal stretching article is completely dormant at the moment. I don't get it. 2) My username is Rfwoolf - not Woolf. There have been only two users thus far who have called me that: Yourself and JzG, hey, Rade ;) 3) You being the one who speedy-deleted the Evidence page, are/were probably concerned that I was about to use the Evidence page to file an RfC about JzG - and are concerned that this might tip the scales and ensure that JzG just leaves Wikipedia altogether. While that is certainly not impossible, you must please see the merits from my viewpoint: Keeping an evidence page is not ipso-facto intent to take formal impeaching action, but rather it serves as a recourse in and of itself: I am collecting evidence so that one day if I find it necessary to use it then I will be able to do so. If that is not allowed, then I can be informed in the proper manner. Speedy-deleting as an attack page (oh-so not correct) is not a proper manner. So my point is that if you're just worried about its affects on JzG - then by speedy-deleting you are only putting pressure on me to proceed with formal dispute resolution, including the growing collection of his gross incivility toward a number of users. I don't know if any of this changes anything, but it's good for you to know Rfwoolf 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, thank you for your message. I don't agree completely with your perspective but it does help to understand what your thinking is. We do agree on some points.

I do think that it is unhealthy to keep around pages of complaints and grievances for long periods of time. Sometimes, it's just better to bury the hatchet and move on. I hadn't realized until recently that the page in question was 6 months old. Learning that did change my perspective a bit.

Nonetheless, I do have the feeling that this whole thing has gotten blown up bigger by the dedication with which you, JzG, Rfwoolf and ATren have pursued the matter. I think that I also have been more strident and opinionated than is healthy. While it's not good to have these whiny complaint pages hanging around, the amount of heat and debate surrounding the effort to delete these pages and keep them deleted hasn't been any healthier.

Me personally, I'm sick of the whole mess. Rfwoolf could have let the whole thing drop by focusing on a DRV for Anal stretching rather on insisting on a review of the wrongs that have been inflicted on him. JzG didn't need to re-delete the copy of Anal stretching that I recently restored to Rfwoolf's user space. That kinda steamed me but I restored the copy unilaterally and he deleted it unilaterally so I guess we're even.

This whole affair increasingly takes on the characteristics of a personal vendetta on both sides. If I had more cojones, I would block JzG AND Rfwoolf for a week and tell them to just cool it because their little brushfire just keeps growing and growing, pulling in more editors each day. Unfortunately, blocking seems to be a really difficult tool to use without having it blow up in your face into a wheel war so I won't go down that road.

I got better ways to use my Wikipedia time than waste it on this petty personal feud.

--Richard 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

you know i think thats some well advice you gave me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physik (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. Feel free to ask me for any additional help or advice that you need.

--Richard 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I thought about this already

Thanks I thought about this already, and in fact added a source before your edit. --Molobo 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Organizing Mexico Project

Hi, Richard. [Alixb|Alixb] and I want to improve the organization the Mexico project. I noticed that you have been very helpful to the Mexican instructor. Maybe some of us can help the more undecisive ones to help on some articles? I personally would like help with some articles, and Alixb wishes to get an info box project going. PS I will be gone a few days since I am getting my wisdom teeth remove tomorrow. I will try to get back to you as soon as I can. --Hugo Estrada 03:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

consensus exists

I've already replied.. Many thanks for considering this...I know I'm probably getting a bit desperate sounding - and I assure you that I usually am not - but this is an odd case where time is actually a factor. Girolamo Savonarola 08:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding you request

Regarding your request towards citations. Could please look at those changes: [20] [21] I could use your help in convicing this editor to act in responsible manner. --Molobo 18:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, what do you think about [22]? I admit I don't know enough about the matter to want to meddle, but on average I am against removal of citations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert?

Richard, your revert reverted my revert and several copy editing changes - I have a new version with more refs ready to put in but there is an 'edit conflict'. Do I have your permission to save my updated version over yours? If so, could you revert yourself to my edition?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I was responding to Molobo's request to evaluate Jagder's edit removing {{fact}} tags. Seems to me that citations would help in the areas indicated by Molobo.

--Richard 19:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added several citations to the article, veryifing most of the story - but I couldn't find anything for the Silesian Uprisings link; and there are few other facts remaining - and various details due to inconsistent sources (see talk).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

yes, see the talk page, and please comment.

--Jadger 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Columbine edit

I think you added the following text recently to the Columbine wiki page:

"Several of the victims, who were portrayed as having been killed for their religious beliefs, became a source of inspiration to others, and some lamented the decline of Bible reading in public schools, and society in general, often blaming the tragedy on insufficient government endorsement of Bible reading"

This appears in the 2nd paragraph of the article. I strongly believe it is way too prominent and belongs elsewhere - perhaps in a section labeled "Columbine and religion." It also needs to be referenced. Finally, Katherine Newman in her book "Rampage" would argue that religous orthodoxy and exclusion on the basis of faith were one of the causes of what happened there. If we really want to add the paragraph, we should also summarize Newman's (published and well researched) thoughts. She would, in essence, attribute too much standardization in the practice of religion as one big issue. ZookieByTheSea 09:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection until dispute is resolved

Hi, there is ongoing edit war between two factions about the Nicolaus Copernicus's nationality. I would like to ask you for a full page protection until dispute is resolved. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've protected it. Try to come up with a compromise that can settle this issue once and for all. --Richard 14:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, one more, please put there {{pp-dispute}} just for announcement there is something in progress. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw some discussions about that article on the talk page, but it doesn't seem to be clear consensus. In fact I can't see any, nor vote or something similar. I think this clear voting will be good. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at this

Hi Richard, would you mind having a look at Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Request_for_comment_Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II.23Treatment_of_POWs

I would appreciate an outsiders opinion.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Picaroon#Userboxes

There was a confusion on what I meant by content. I do not consider non-archive pages such as userboxes to be content. So I would appreciate an undeletion. I apologise for the confusion. -- Cat ^chi? 22:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin coach

Well I suppose an admin coach would be great! I feel that I do know policy fairly well now, but i think a coach could help me stay directed until I have another RFA around September. If you could coach me, I would be very grateful. Thanks! -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, I dont mind when people call me AD. I myself get tired of typing it up :). In answer to your questions:

1. I feel that, after my RFA, and after warnings about this issue that I received even after my RFA, I have burned the CSD right into my skull, and that there would not be an issue in this area anymore. The problem I see is convincing people that the concern has been addressed, which is something I cant see how I can do. Maybe that is one way you can help me - by fixing this concern - in the m inds of everybody else.
2. I feel I do know most of the core policies well, and often cite them when proving a point in discussions. However, there may be areas of policy i have not explored, areas that can become apparent when I am subject to a policy question I find myself unable to answer. That is, I guess, how you can help me: by seeing where my weak points are policy and administration wise, and helping me to fix them up, and be able to correctly answer questions relating to these weak points.
3. Lastly - I am not entirely sure how I can prepare, what preparations I need, after having trying to address the issues of the last RFA, and after seeking an admin coach. I guess that asking for a coach was asking to be prepared, in a way.

Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I already do take a keen interest at WP:RFA, and at WT:RFA, where I have commented close to 200 times (see my edit count for more details). I look at what fails and what passes too. I also like AFD. I will have a look at /RFA questions, and see if I can answer. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Problematic PP

can you have a talk with Piotrus. he has gone vastly beyond the 3RR, even reverting when I refine my statements and give multiple references on Gleiwitz incident.

--Jadger 23:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Talking about problems, Richard, are you sure that protecting article is the best way to deal with the problem which arose simply because one editor broke 6RR and showed no signs of wanting to compromise?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Piotrus both on the content dispute as well as the question of whether protection is the best tool to use here. It's not. Unfortunately, it is the only tool I have at my disposal other than blocking. I really wish not to block Jadger. What this means, I think, is that I have a conflict of interest here and any further admin action should be taken by somebody else. If you really feel Jadger should be blocked, please ask another admin to do it. I would hope that there would be one last attempt at compromise on the Talk Page first, however.

--Richard 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about CoI, and I wouldn't expect you to do the block (just as I am not using my admin powers myself), but as I explained on article's talk, protecting is suboptimal. Perhaps you could comment here. The 6RR violation leaves no room for anything else.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and antisemitism

The reason i rated it low was that it is of little concern nowadays on the other hand Islam_and_antisemitism is of major concern have you heard recently any christian quoting Jesus as saying "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." or anything like that that quote is part of Hadith Sahih Bukhari see http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.177 and is considered authoritative by all sunni muslims (Which is 91% of all muslims)--Java7837 00:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been insulted by any Christians they are a very good people on the other hand i have been insulted and harassed muslims. --Java7837 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

Characterising another editors good faith threads as trolling is incredibly bad faith. If guy wants to remove my thread on the subject let HIM do it. Viridae^Talk 07:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tammy Homolka

because her own sister raped her. Fighting for Justice 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited Comment

Hi! I have edited your comment here so as to contain a valid link. Please accept my apologies for intruding upon your comment in this way, but I did not want Thelmadatter to become confused by clicking that link, which was not functional. Jouster  (whisper) 02:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gleiwitz incident

Since everybody and their dog agrees that the discussed comparison is OR, and no sources for it have been presented, could you remove it? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on Mary Madelene page and creating that category. Please keep a watch on it :( on a different not an editor has revealed my identity in an ANI postinghere violating WP:STALK. What is my recourse ? Thanks Taprobanus 13:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have much recourse. You could seek to have the user blocked or banned. You could file an request for arbitration. However, all of these would tend to publicize your identity more. You can ask someone with oversight capability to delete your identify from the relevant Wikipedia pages. However, your best bet is probably to exercise your right to vanish. Change your username and try to edit in such a way that no one can link you to your current username.

Good luck.

--Richard 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Taprobanus 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Request your input/mediation for Holy See/See of Saint Peter

Hi Richard. An anon editor has moved Holy See to See of St. Peter, launching quite a lively discussion (dispute?). Can you weigh in, mediate, or suggest a remedy? Thanks. Majoreditor 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Please stop copying material directly from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html into Wikipedia articles, and please delete all the material you have already copied. I've deleted Jewish canon as a straight copyright violation, as well as your insertion regarding the Samaritan canon. Please delete the rest immediately. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard, I've had to delete the material on another of the pages you created, as it was all copied directly from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html and http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html . Please ensure that any remaining copyright violating material is deleted immediately. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, but isn't it allowed to keep a copy of copyrighted material in my user space so that I can work on writing an article based on it? What I did was take the text from Jewish canon which you deleted as a copyvio and move it to User talk:Richardshusr/Jewish canon in order to rewrite it as a non-infringing article. Am I wrong in taking this approach?

--Richard 19:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that copyright violations are forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...OK. As I re-read WP:CV, it doesn't say what I thought it said. It does say that a rewrite can be written in a TEMP page but it doesn't say that the copyright infringing text can be parked there during the rewrite (which is what I thought).

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you may:

Rewrite the article, excluding copyrighted text. This is done on a temporary page at Talk:PAGENAME/Temp so that the original, copyright-infringing version can be deleted by an administrator and the rewrite copied over. If the original turns out to be non-infringing, these two can be merged.

--Richard 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy Vio

Hi Richard,

There is a minor question of an edit that you contributed to an article going on over at WP:GA/R#Pope_John_Paul_II. It looks as if you copied a section of another page onto this article. I don't think it is appropriate for the question this edit without your having a chance to defend your contribution.Balloonman 04:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Richard, thanks for your feedback on the GAR. I do something similar to what you do, but in my sandbox, which is what you might want to consider doing. What I do, however, differs slightly from what you appear to be doing in two significant ways---first make sure that you have full citations for everything that you copy to your sand box... make it clear where the information came from. If you reveal where the quoted section comes from you might be criticized for quoting too much, but it does alleviate the copy-vio label somewhat. Second, don't copy the entire article. Read the article and selectively cut and paste smaller sections that you might want to include in your rewrite. Make it into more of a "Notes" section than copying the full article. This might help avoid some embarrassment such as the GA/R and your encounter with Jayjg above. Just my 2 cents.Balloonman 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is good advice. --Richard 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with vandalism on LULAC Page

Hi, Richard. I am having trouble with the following page: League of United Latin American Citizens. A vandal insists on putting a paragraph that criticizes LULAC using a source that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group. This is degenerating into an edit war, and the vandal refuses to engage in conversation on the discussion page. Is there a way of locking the page for some time in the hopes that the vandal will stop doing this? Thanks in advance. --Hugo Estrada 11:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the lulac page, Richard. :) --Hugo Estrada 11:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for protecting The Holocaust. Trying to find consensus and convincing the edit warrior to make smaller changes to the article over a longer period of time has been difficult. Hopefully this will cause him to rethink his strategy. – Dreadstar † 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of Dean Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While not expressly prohibited either by Wikipedia:Protection policy or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is inappropriate for administrators to issue page protections that have the effect of obstructing the removal of unreferenced controversial information concerning living persons, when the administrator knows, or reasonably should have known, that the offending information was present in the page at the time of protection. Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes provides that

Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.

while Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material states that page protections are to be used in favor of the removal of unreferenced controversial information concerning living persons:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Since WP:BLP issues were raised in edits removing the disputed material from Dean Barker (see [23], for example), and on the WP:ANI report, to which you responded in performing the page protection, you should have reviewed all of the material in dispute to determine whether it constituted unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial information concerning a living person, before protecting the page with the disputed content present. You did remove some of the WP:BLP violating material from Dean Barker; however, leaving this material in place for nearly a day after the page protection is unacceptable. Additionally, another WP:BLP violation identified on the WP:ANI report has yet to be removed. Furthermore, the first and second paragraphs of content removed here are currently sourced only to the broken link "http://www.590klbj.com/news/article.aspx?id=1165515", and thus constitute unreferenced negative information concerning a living person, in violation of WP:BLP. Please remove all of the unreferenced, inadequately referenced, or original research controversial information concerning a living person from Dean Barker, or unprotect the article. John254 01:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and have explained why on Talk:Dean Barker. Nonetheless, since this is hardly worth spending much time on, I have complied with your request despite my disagreement with you on the principles stated above.

--Richard 05:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a misstep more serious than you appreciate. I urge you to review WP:BLP before proceeding to taking any further action related to biographies of living persons, including protection, blocks of users, etc.Proabivouac 09:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My age

I agree with you, but I also disagree. I am not particularly bothered too heavily with internet safety - I have only revealed my first name, a very ambiguous approximation of where I am usually located, and the fact that I am 12. But, since you have provided some good advice about RFA in the past, I will do as you say and not 'advertise' it any more. Thanks for the insight. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I wouldnt say that advertising is the best word; perhaps 'mentioning' is better - its not like I'm 'showing off' or anything - I used it to provide an example and some context at WT:RFA. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood. That's why I didn't mention it earlier although I considered doing so. The "Internet safety" thing is probably a non-issue. However, it's obvious that mentioning your age will hurt you more on RFA than help you. Why give people an excuse to be age-ist? --Richard 07:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No reason, I suppose. I guess there are certain unchangeable details that will invariably prove 'hurtful' in certain situations, and where a non-mention will prove the better course of action. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are 12? Could have fooled me. Viridae^Talk 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And see? That's the point. When I offered to be AD's admin coach, I hadn't looked at his user page and so I wasn't aware that he was 12. When I later saw his age on his user page, I did a double-take and thought "Really? Did I make a mistake?" and then decided "Nah. Let's just wait and see if age and maturity becomes an issue." It hasn't yet. --Richard 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't seen anything I dislike. I think AD will make a good admin. Viridae^Talk 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets just see. People will have concerns, and I want to be able to address them properly, to make sure that, if by some great luck, I do become an admin, I will use the tools to the communities full advantage. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's interesting... Maybe I could pass off as older than what I am. I wonder if it would make much difference anywhere, though... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit for protected page

On the article A Mighty Heart, the other user wants more statements to be added to the criticism section. Though I wonder if it should even be bothered with as the additions aren't much. There was more I agreed to, such as the reference to articles on other websites (Bet.com, Bossip.com, etc.) but couldn't find the articles so they could be cited. On the discussion page, look at the top of the page and under "Email discussion." Thanks. -- WiccaIrish 01:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits in Jehovah

It seems that you have posted this message to me. I didnt know how to reply it. So I am writing to you here. Actually I didnt use these words:"in most parts of the world". It was already there like this. I have actually changed it to "throughout the world". I know this for sure, since I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. Thank you. --- Arun

--your message--

Regarding your edit to Jehovah concerning Jehovah's Witnesses

Your edit uses "weasel" words which fail to fully inform the reader. Phrases like "in most parts of the world" cause the reader to ask "well, where do they not use the the word Jehovah"? This information should be provided either in the text or in a footnote. And a citation to a reliable source would help, too.

--Richard 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your change works for me. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted what your edit was and what was somebody else's.

--Richard 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine as long as the text is OK. --- Arun

Sonic Rush Adventure

Per the unprotection page, I am requesting from you the unprotection of the Sonic Rush Adventure article. Now, I myself wasn't involved with the edit warring (which BTW, was REALLY stupid), but I and others editing have seen it fit to list the release date as "TBA" or something similar. I ask that you review the talk page and see if the article merits unprotection. There's a boatload of new info that needs to be added.GrandMasterGalvatron 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was my company's article deleted?

Dear Richard Shusr,

I was starting to create a profile on wiki of my company. You removed it, why was it removed?

Thanks, Brian Brammeier brianb@bcsinc-usa.com

It was tagged by somebody else for speedy deletion as WP:SPAM. I looked at it and agreed so I deleted it. I'm not sure what article you are referring to as I delete several such articles a day. Nonetheless, you might consider that your writing an article about your company is considered a conflict of interest. I would discourage you from writing that article. If your company is notable, somebody unrelated to your company will eventually write an article about it. --Richard 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jake Gepanga

I thought G4 only applied to articles which had previously been deleted via AfD, as opposed to having previously been speedied.....? ChrisTheDude 08:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of good humour

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the comment you linked up to User talk:Jimbo Wales which set my day off with a smile! With regards, Lradrama 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chemmani

Thanks for meditating on it :))))That was really funnyTaprobanus 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude you must be the FUNNIEST wikipedian around. Specially because of this. Keep up the good work :) Watchdogb 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC) PS. Thanks for fixing my spelling error :D

Email

You have email. Please reply in that format, if possible. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation Protocol

Hi Richard!

When you get back off vacation, can you take a look at an article I am translating into English? Specifically, I dont know how to put the "permanent link" to the article. The translation page is at

Wikipedia:Translation/Luis_G._Abbadie

I have fixed the problem with the "permanent link". This diff should show you the problem that you were having. --Richard 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to find someone over at Spanish Wikipedia (bilingual preferably) who can be as helpful as you (if such a thing is possible! hee hee) about the translation policies over there. Do you know someone I can contact? I sent a message to one of the mentor volunteers who said he knows something about the "cultural differences" between Wikipedias.

Thanks for the compliment. As for "finding someone over at Spanish Wikipedia", you might try their help desk. Here's a link to the café which provides links to other possible sources of assistance. --Richard 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy the rest of your vacation! Thelmadatter 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

It was very enjoyable, thank you. Now I'm back. --Richard 14:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

About Holocaust Denial talk page

I've made a section break at "predetermined conclusion". Rename new section if you don't like how I named it. Nothing personal meant.--Igor "the Otter" 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you may think about that talk page, I am not a troll. These guys only were responded in kind, as they deserve. Best wishes.--Igor "the Otter" 14:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't expected that you support that unfear decision to block me. Why didn't they blocked Squiddy, can I ask? I don't think that conformism is a best human virtue. --Igor "the Otter" 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Using categories

OK dumb question but Im going around in circles trying to figure it out. How do you look up articles within a category? Like Category:Mexico?Thelmadatter 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

It's not so dumb a question. Categories are very powerful but they're not quite intuitive unless you have a computer-geek mentality. There are currently only two articles in Category:Mexico - Mexico and Ixmiquilpan. And Ixmiquilpan probably doesn't belong in Category:Mexico; it just hasn't been categorized into a subcategory yet.

Try this. Click on Category:Mexico. Then click on the "+" sign next to the subcategory "Mexican culture" and keep going like this with "Arts in Mexico", "Mexican art", "Mexican artists" and finally "Mexican painters". You will notice that when you click on the "+" sign next to "Mexican painters", it says "No subcategories". You can now click on "Mexican painters" and find a list of articles on Mexican painters.

The key thing to understand here is that a category can have both subcategories and articles. For example, Category:Mexican culture has 55 articles and about 20 subcategories.

For more info, read Wikipedia:Categorization.

--Richard 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

useful info or shameless promotion?

I just started a stub on Self_access_language_learning_centers which I intend to expand into a full article. My school has this and I was wondering if I can mention it as a sample center and link to our website. I wont mention my name in the article but I will mention my school's. Is that kosher or not? Thelmadatter 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Better not to do so unless your school is a leader in the field. Even then WP:COI would suggest that you let someone else do it. --Richard 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okey Doke Thelmadatter 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Short Entertainment

I don't understand why you are deleting our page. We are not trying to promote, but info people of who we are. Not only are we involved in entertainment, but pit bull rescue, ADA services, and a youth foundation. We started this informational page because we saw that Mini Kiss has one. We also have a "small" KISS tribute band. We are unique. What can we do to make changes to keep our page. Pleas let us know.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortyrossi (talk • contribs) 07:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on your Talk Page... read WP:CORP and WP:COI. Write an article that meets those criteria.

--Richard 07:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Catholic Church" terminology

You made the following commentary on the R. Catholic "Naming" discussion page:

"(Greek Catholic Church) that separated from its communion with the Pope in 1054 AD.

So the question is"... is a church that has separated from its communion with the pope still "Catholic"? Is "communion with the Pope" the critical feature of being a "Catholic Church"? This part of your argument seems to fit well with the current naming scheme. Roman Catholic Church describes those "Catholic churches" which are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Catholicism describes the wider meaning of "Catholic" to include the other churches that you mention.

Answering your question. No, "communion with the Pope" is not JUST the critical issue the problem is that all the Fathers of the early church were in communion with the successor to Peter as well as ALL the other doctrines of that Early Church, irespectable of the particular Church rite. Therefore, to be the Catholic Church from the very begining was directly associated with the Eucharist, Bishops, Priest, and Deacons as well as a unifying head of all- in the Petrine Bishoprik...whether he was actually called a Pope, Bishop or simply "Simon Peter".

You also mentioned:

Unfortunately, your argument seems to change somewhat later in your post so I don't quite understand your point.

Evidently, you missed the sarcasism in that last sentence...wikipedia has the very right to change history... NOBODY has the right to change history, period.

If St.Ignatius(1st century Greek Catholic- not Latin), St. Augustine(Western/Latin- but never refered to his church as "Roman", simply Catholic Church), or numerous other Eastern Catholic Church Fathers as Nicolas of Smyrnea (the original St. Nick) of the first millenia all considered themselves simply Catholic and in union with the "chair of Peter", then certainly the historical Church was always simply the "Catholic Church". What you do not seem to comprehend is that the Successor to Peter serves multiple roles now and since St. Peters last day on earth. You see, since the Latin Rite became a subdivision of the Church as the church continued to grow Patriarchs of the Church began to dictate regional developing customs ( language, music, forms of worship) though doctrines did not differ (Eucharist, Baptism, etc.) . You had Patriarchates in Antioch(Greek), Rome(Latin) and Alexandria(Coptic-Egypt) for example. Each Patriarchate was, lets say the equivalent of a regional Governor over the particular rite. Now within that system, you had one supreme head which also happened to be the leader of the Latin Church though he did not dictate local rite-related customs of particular Patriarchates and Sub-churches. This concept is difficult to comprehend because modern heirachal institutions do not have supreme leaders also representing a regional leadership within the same institution. It is sort of like having George W. Bush as governor of Texas(say the Latin rite) as well as leader of the United States (Catholic Church).

In that same light in calling the original Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Church" simply because its leader is also the leader of the western, Latin rite, would be the same as renaming the United States, the United States of Texas because its supreme leader was also the governor of the state of Texas. Thus, presenting the historical and original institution of the United States rather erroneously, because the United State is not Texas. Just as the present and original Catholic Church is/was not Roman, just because its leader is also the leader of the Latin Church.

Hence, the term "Roman" Catholic Church is a misrepresentation of the Catholic Church, because all historical data and criteria substantiates it as the same original Church.

I know its not easy, but I hope you now can understand this issue a bit better.Micael 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A very serious imbalance

Hey just passing through, but I still have a question about something that is and has been bothering me. [24] This article is one of many that again does not express the consensus of scholars of biblical history outside of Europe and then also no even Roman Catholic scholars. There is no mention of historians of any other origin and their opinions on these types of articles. I mean the monks of Athos and St Catherine's have a very different perspective it seems that unless something is in English and is a controversial opinion then it doesn't matter. Also the criteria of "scholar" is almost a misnomer because Coptic and Greek monks can not express and opinion even though their functions may well be librarian or scribe. It is really a shame that some much of this is Euro-centric well the religion of Christian is Middle Eastern. Scholars like Dimitry Pospielovsky don't seem to even get a fair shake even if they come to the West and publish in English anyway. But let a ethnic scholar post something crazy and Oh My God all of the sudden their work is everywhere. Pathetic. LoveMonkey 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not competent to comment on this matter. Why doesn't Pospielovsky get "a fair shake"? Have you tried to present his work in Wikipedia articles? --Richard 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

X-WAM

Good day to you. I was trying to leave some info. on the BEATBOXER "X-WAM" and I see your name next to the reason it was deleted... WHY? I have permission from X-WAM himself to post it up but for some reason you (I think) have taken it off. If you have no clue as to what I'm saying then I guess I'm barking up the wrong tree and I'm sorry for that. But I'd like to get to the bottom of this... To remind you of what it is I'll put it on the bottom of this note. Let me know wazz up? X-WAM@HOTMAIL.COM

THANK YOU.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WHOBEDAT (talk • contribs) 00:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

There were at least two problems which led to your article being deleted.

First, it appeared to be a copyright violation. Refer to the "Granting us permission to copy material already on line" section of WP:COPYVIO for instructions on how to validate your claim that you have permission to post this information on Wikipedia. Also make sure that X-WAM knows what rights he is giving up by releasing this information to Wikipedia. I.E. have him read WP:COPYVIO carefully.

Second, even if you meet the requirements of WP:COPYVIO, there is the question of how notable X-WAM is. Read WP:BAND and see if he meets those criteria.

Third, you are welcome to appeal my decision by putting up your article for deletion review. I would recommend that you not waste your time with this as I doubt you will get my decision overturned for the reasons that I outlined above.

Finally, I have deleted the original text of the X-WAM article from this Talk Page as I am able to read the text of the deleted article without having it be posted here.

--Richard 07:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Standard

hi,

You deleted my "the pharma guide" page coz you think its smell like SPAM & advertising but what about this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TripAdvisor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualtourist

these are commercial web sites and promoting them on wikipedia . but NO one deleting them cuz they are "BIG SHOT"

its totally UNFAIR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtpg (talk • contribs) 06:55, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your objection is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF and thus carries little weight. If you feel that TripAdvisor and Virtualtourist should be deleted because they also violate WP:CORP and WP:SPAM then put them up for deletion. Don't put them up for speedy deletion though, because they don't fit the criteria for speedy deletion as explained in the next point.

Second, Virtualtourist has an "Acknowledgments" section which establishes its notability. Tripadvisor is not so obviously notable although its ownership by Expedia suggests that it may be notable.

Third, there is a huge quantum difference between the abject disgrace of an article that was your "pharma guide" page and the two articles that you are comparing it against. Nothing is stopping you from writing a Wikipedia-quality article about the pharma guide with citations to establish notability. Instead of complaining about the deletion of that awful page, write a good one that meets the criteria of a Wikipedia-quality article and there will be nothing to debate.

Fourth, you are welcome to appeal my decision by putting up your article for deletion review. I would recommend that you not waste your time with this as I doubt you will get my decision overturned for the reasons that I outlined above. If I were you, I would concentrate on rewriting the article as I suggested above.

--Richard 07:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Confronting Arianism

Are you reading my edits? I am sourcing parts of the section Confronting Arianism in the article the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church‎ article. I first added to the source section the book I am sourcing from. I have then added the pages and then also the actual comments from the book. And yet you posted that I did none of this on my talkpage. Why did you do that? LoveMonkey 17:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am catching up after almost three months of not paying a lot of attention to the Eastern Orthodox related articles. I have not looked closely at any of your recent edits although I have taken a brief look at them from time to time over the last couple of months. If I write something that fails to take into account stuff that you've done in the last couple of months, feel free to ignore it. Some of what I write in response to your old posts are general platitudes that describes what you should do without taking into account whether or not you are already doing it now.

As you've commented before, there's only so much time that can be devoted to this project on a volunteer basis.

--Richard 17:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Telugu script

Hi Richard! Yes, you're exactly right, I made my change at exactly the same time as you protected the page, and since I'm an admin, I do not receive any notification or feedback that the page had been protected in between me hitting "Edit" and hitting "Save" on my edits. --Stormie 09:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oakville Yacht Squadron

What do you make of the Oakville Yacht Squadron article?? 88.137.150.67 18:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyler Turner

I have no problem with denying the db on the above. I couldn't find notability so I tagged it. Life is too short to take this to afd. Cheers! --Stormbay 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Churches of Christ page unprotected?

Why was this page unprotected at the request of an anoymous user who was the most significant reason it was locked in the first place? The anon in question (74.249.7.218, 74.249.12.243, 74.249.12.211, 74.249.12.80, 74.249.12.172, and possibly 129.252.184.14) has been the source of most disruption, personal attacks, and POV edits in past months. This page should not have been unprotected without reviewing the issues that caused the problems in the first place. That it was unprotected at the request of the trouble-maker responsible for it in the first place doesn't bode well. Jdb1972 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I discovered Barnstars!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Id leave 15 of these if they wouldnt cover all the talk page :D To the first guy who really made me feel welcome and tirelessly put up with all my ignorance! Thelmadatter 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmdatter

Thanks! --Richard 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 13:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

checking citation

Hi Richard!

Can you check the way I cited the new information I put into the article Self_access_language_learning_centers? I added information from 2 journals that I have access to via a paid search service. I put the web address of the service with the number of the article but I dont think it qualifies as a free open source. I looked in the manual how to cite articles found on services like Eric and the like but I didnt see anything... or at least nothing jumped out and bit me. I used the citation format for journals as these are not web sites; however, there are no page numbers or volume numbers available on Highbeam Reseach, the service I used. Thanks!Thelmadatter 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

I took a quick look at it. For the most part, it looks OK but I think a little more information would help regarding the publisher and publication. For example, the publisher for the Michael Rodden piece is the BBC. Usually websites have titles and few serious articles are published as stand-alone web pages, so you should add the name of the website as the publication if it is an online-only publication. Otherwise, give the name of the hardcopy publication. --Richard 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Singleton and Step-Greany articles are the two I got from the Highbeam service. The Rodden article is a web site. I should have made that clear instead of having you guess. Thelmadatter 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Yup, I saw the Stepp-Greany citation and it looks OK to me. The Malinda Singleton (Malinda not Melinda?) article has a dead link, though. --Richard 23:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

See my comments at the bottom of this section. [25] World Arachny 06:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to be gentle in my warning. I suggest that you retract the legal threat immediately as User:jpgordon suggested. You are right on the edge of being blocked indefinitely. Read WP:LEGAL and know that there are admins who would block first without warning. --Richard 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I noticed jpgordon is well-known for his harshness. Better watch out! World Arachny 06:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You have not blocked me. What defines "retracting", then? Please, do explain. World Arachny 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Franks and Arianism

To cut to the chase just read thru the Filioque_clause article. Lets start there. LoveMonkey 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, didn't see this comment until today. sorry.

The article on the Filioque clause says...

2.1 First official use

Although there were earlier hints of the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, including an expression in the Athanasian Creed and a dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I[2], it was first officially added to the Nicene Creed at the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[3] This was done primarily to oppose Arianism, which taught that the Son was a created being and which was prevalent among the Germanic peoples. This version of the Creed was accepted by the local Visigothic rulers, who had been Arians until then.

2.2 The Franks and the filioque

After the Visigoths, the filioque was also accepted as part of the Creed by the Franks, which under the leadership of Pippin the Younger and his son Charlemagne rose to dominance in the West, with Charlemagne being crowned Emperor in 800.

Pope Leo III forbade the addition of "filioque" to Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith)(VITA LEONIS , LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

However, among the Franks the filioque was widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed. Most thought that the Greek churches, which at that time were under the thumb of successive emperors and dominated by Iconoclasm, were in error for omitting it. Contemporary usage was thought to be normative and authentic. Frankish predominance put pressure on Rome to adopt the filioque, which however only occurred after the year 1000.

The article on the Franks says...

In 496, Clovis I, who had married a Burgundian Roman Catholic named Clotilda, was baptised into the Catholic faith by Saint Remi. According to Gregory of Tours, over 3000 of his soldiers were baptised alongside him.[15] This event had an immense impact on the history of Europe, for at the time the Franks were the only major Germanic tribe in communion with Rome. Their contemporary rivals, the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, and Lombards, were of the Arian persuasion, and this led the catholic church to support the Franks.

What is the connection between the Filioque and Arianism? It would appear that the Filioque was constructed to combat the Arianism of the non-Frankish Germanic tribes.

So, where is the connection between the Franks, Arianism and the Western church? None that I can see.

One could argue that the Filioque was illegitimately added to the Nicene creed due to a desire to combat Arianism but I have not understood what you have written in History of the Eastern Orthodox Church to say that. The text in the Filioque clause article does express that POV. Instead, your text in History of the Eastern Orthodox Church read as if you meant to say that Arianism had influenced the Western church and thus torn it away from the one true orthodox faith. This implication is what I was objecting to.

--Richard 05:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

talk holcaust denial

User World anarchy blanked the whole bias section of that talk page and called it a courtesy blanking. I restored it but I did not revert his legal threat. I advised jpgordon of this as well.: Albion moonlight 09:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard! I've unblocked User talk:World Arachny after what I considered a luke-warm but essentially sincere retraction in his unblock request. I hope you are ok with this. --Stephan Schulz 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have been OK with it except now Ryulong has blocked him for being a sock puppet of User:Ionas68224 so I guess that settles that. --Richard 04:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. So much for my effort ;-). --Stephan Schulz 05:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Album cover

I uploaded an album cover and you deleted it. I was wondering why and what I had to do to make sure it stays there. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ewgunnciz (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to our policy on donating copyrighted material. Basically, everything has to be donated on a "free for all to use" basis. You cannot restrict use of any material to be "used on Wikipedia only".

--Richard 06:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the Breakfast Crew.

I believe that was not the correct thing to do, as to seeing multiple teams have a Wikipedia. I was not even given the time to update it..

I just want reasoning as to why Breakfast Crew was deleted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Complexity <<< that is there.

Thanks

Calv1n1337 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC) calvin

If you can't see the difference between the Breakfast Crew article and Los Angeles Complexity article, I can't help you. The version of the Breakfast Crew article was poorly written, had unencyclopedic content and, more importantly, made no assertion of notability. Los Angeles Complexity at least makes a claim of notability although I could imagine it being nominated for deletion.

You are welcome to request a review of my decision via the deletion review process but, if I were you, I wouldn't waste my time as you are unlikely to get my decision overturned.

Consult the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. If you really think that the Breakfast Crew is notable, then you are welcome to rewrite and recreate the article.

However, if you recreate the article at the same level of quality as the last version, it will certainly be speedy deleted again.

--Richard 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.

Calv1n1337 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)calvin

Neighborhood Planning Unit W

I removed the speedy deletion tag from Neighborhood Planning Unit W and you restored it. Can you explain on the Talk Page why you think this should be deleted? I can see your point of view for speedy deletion but I think it is just ambiguous enough that it might be worth keeping.

--Richard 05:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I hadn't checked the history and didn't know a speedy tag had been removed. Precious Roy 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

bitchslapradio

why was it deleted? It referenced a group of people, not a website, forum, etc.. as disclosed in artice 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.70.119 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no assertion of notability with the possible exception of being available via iTunes. If you wish, you can appeal my decision via the deletion review process. Alternatively, you can rewrite the article providing verifiable citations to reliable sources that indicate the notability of this streaming radio station.

--Richard 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

drexler coal company

This page was deleted, despite the fact that there is no knowledge of the company in the entirety of wikipedia. Could you please explain why this was deleted, even though an explanation was given as to why it should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.0.168 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because there is no verifiable evidence that the company ever existed. I did a Google search and came up with nothing. The only evidence that we have is your assertion that you have in your possession letters attesting to the company's existence. We cannot verify the existence of these letters, let alone their authenticity. Even if the company did exist, not every company is notable. Thus, we need verifiable evidence from a reliable source of the company's notability. Consult WP:CORP for guidelines on the criteria for establishing a company's notability.

--Richard 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adam David Pearson

I agree with you, and I'm about to do it. - KrakatoaKatie 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kagawa Chikakazu

You removed a request for deletion of a copyright violation article (Kagawa Chikakazu) saying: (I don't see the copyvio; a copyvio requires an exact or near exact repetition of words and/or phrases; simply using the same facts does not constitute a copyvio)

Unfortunately the article is a "near exact repetition of words and/or phrases" - for example:

Wikipedia copyright infringement:

• "Chikakazu was the second son of the famous Chosokabe Motochika and was adopted into the Kagawa clan during the year of 1581, succeeding the position of Kagawa Nobukage. When Chikakazu attained successorship, he received the Amagiri Castle in Sanuki Province."

Original Text:

• "Chikakazu was the second son of Chosokabe Motochika and in 1581 became the head of the Kagawa family, succeeding Kagawa Nobukage. He was given Amagiri Castle in Sanuki Province."

Wikipedia copyright infringement:

• "When Chikakazu's elder brother, Chosokabe Nobuchika died in battle during the year of 1586, Chikakazu became the potential heir to the Chosokabe house. Toyotomi Hideyoshi even approved Chikakazu becoming the successor of Motochika."

Original Text: (http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/bd.html)

When his elder brother Nobuchika was killed in 1586, Chikakazu was a potential heir to the Chosokabe house, and in fact Toyotomi Hideyoshi gave his approval for Chikakazu to be named as Motochika's successor.

Wikipedia copyright infringement:

• "However, Motochika refused this action, and instead wanted his fourth son, Chosokabe Morichika to be his successor. Despondent and bitter, Chikakazu retired to a secular life, and died the following year. It is thought that Motochika had him given to another house and not kept on as a possible heir due to his weak constitution."

Original Text:

• "In the event, Motochika elected not to obey Hideyoshi in this and instead named his 4th son, Morichika, heir. Despondent and bitter, Chikakazu withdrew from active life and died the following year. Actually, one story goes that it was specifically because of Chikakazu's weak constitution that Motochika had him given to another house and not kept on as a possible heir."

This article was copied by User:Darin Fidika (see the merged Chosokabe Chikakazu article), who was banned after over 800 of his articles had to be deleted from wikipedia for copyright infringement of my website, and only reinstated when he promised to stop his plagiarism. This is yet another I have only recently discovered. As you can see, the copied text is nearly identical in form, words, wording, and phrases to my original, and Wikipedia policy clearly states that simply rewording copyrighted text does not remove copyright infringement. Any school teacher or professor, upon receiving a paper like this would immediately expel the student for what is an obvious case of plagiarism.

Admins Nihonjoe and Mangojuice are well aware of the situation, and you can contact them if it still seems necessary.

Thanks. --Kuuzo 00:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I guess I didn't look closely enough. We also have somewhat different standards for copyvio. I think it's debatable how much copyvio there is in the Wikipedia article but there is enough (e.g. repetition of phrases like "bitter and despondent") to warrant deletion.

However, since you are the author of the original text, I have deleted the Wikipedia article as you have requested.

--Richard 00:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry to bother you with it - it has been an ongoing problem with that one user. --Kuuzo 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wheelbarrow Song

Hi I did not create original or try to recreate page The Wheelbarrow Song by Mrpea86 nor have I seen the original content of page but I do think it to be created in good faith and would be factually correct. see Notts Countys Wheelbarrow SongPalmiped 20:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Censured again

You again deleted large portions of the History of the Orthodox church article claiming they belong somewhere but are now deleted. You deleted sourced info without a valid explaination. This article of which you state you are not well enough informed about to be making such board edits seems to be one that should fit your whim. Rather then be one that before removing sourced information you discuss. Remember the article has a header stating that it needs sourced info. What part of the article would not and could not be considered polemic Richard? I mean your now imposing a logical fallacy as a standard for validation. LoveMonkey 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I may not know a lot about Eastern Orthodoxy but I know polemic when I see it.

The text in question is not NPOV. It presents one side of the debate without presenting the other. So it is polemic. It might be OK to leave it if text providing balance is added.

Moreover, it is not "history". It discusses a current, ongoing dispute. So, it more properly belongs in the Eastern Orthodox Church article or the Eastern Catholic Churches article. In any event, it does not belong in the position from which I deleted it because it is now in the "Forced Conversions" section where it most certainly does not belong.

--Richard 07:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. Even if it is encyclopedic, that doesn't mean it can be placed anywhere in any article.

You wrote "What part of the article would not and could not be considered polemic Richard? I mean your now imposing a logical fallacy as a standard for validation."

I don't understand your question. Text that is neutral and fact-based is encyclopedic. Text that argues a point-of-view is polemic. Yes, sometimes it is a judgment call but this text was starting to push it.

What "logical fallacy" are you referring to?

--Richard 07:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

From time to time, you seem to write as if you are writing "A History of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the POV of the Eastern Orthodox". Maybe Conservapedia would suit your desires better. The article should be "History of the Eastern Orthodox Church" from a NPOV. That NPOV includes the views of Catholics, Protestants, Jews and yes, even atheists.

--Richard 07:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Asia Miles

The AfD/deletion was being contested on this talk page - I'm not suggesting you undelete, just as a heads up that at least one use might want to DRV it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I knew that. I think your closure of the AFD was a bit premature. It would have made more sense to extend it for further discussion. However, since it looked like a speedy candidate to me, I went ahead and deleted it anyway. --Richard 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

David Bortolucci

Hi, could you please review a recent deletion on the actor David Bortolucci, I was wondering why it was deleted. I have read the the log of deletion, it said he is not a notable and source was missing. He has a page on the "Gardener of Eden" a film that is yet to be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toypony (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bortolucci and then read WP:N and WP:BIO. If you still have questions, feel free to come back and ask them. I'm not sure that I can tell you anything more than this, though. --Richard 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Claremont

The issue relating to whether or how to describe what medical marijuana in Claremont has not been resolved. I don't know who the parties are or whether they would still engage in editing wars.

You protected the Claremont entry on July 18. Does it just stay protected forever? Perhaps the page should be deleted since it will become out of date if it is permanently protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claremonster (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Sunset Elementary School entry

I have read the copyright policy and comply. I can still edit the Sunset Elementary School, or rewrite it somewhat differently if you prefer. But shouldn't I do that once the page is restored? A similar version of the text will be used in the coming months on Sunset Elementary's website, sunset.dadeschools.net,would there be a problem? Thanks for your help, I am quite new at Wikipedia. Gabriela Seedvp 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Hello Richard! If you have time, could you take a look at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board#Categories? I would appreciate further feedback on some concerns I have regarding Category:German people by state. Olessi 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunset Elementary School - Restored

Thank you so much for your help! Question: Do I need to rewrite the whole article, or can it still be very similar to the existing webpage at http://pangeasunset.net/aboutus.aspx, which was written by me too? Thanks again! Seedvp 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Gabriela

If it reads like http://pangeasunset.net/aboutus.aspx, it will almost certainly be renominated for speedy deletion as WP:SPAM. Please read WP:CORP for our guidelines regarding articles about businesses. --Richard 16:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Rideshare

I don't know how to communicate with you other then when you harass me and my humble effort to write a nice article. Rideshare 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are asking about the technical details of how to communicate with me, you can leave messages here or on your own Talk Page. For the time being, I have your Talk Page on my watchlist so you can continue the discussion on your Talk Page and I will respond there. (Nothing personal here, my preferences are set to put every page I edit on my watchlist so as soon as I left a message for you, the Wikimedia software put your Talk Page on my watchlist. I have over 1000 pages on my watchlist.)

If you wish to put my Talk Page on your watchlist, you are welcome to although you may find it boring after a while.

If you're saying that you are having trouble getting me to understand your point of view about GishiGo, I'm not sure where we can go from here. I have explained the Wikipedia guidelines and why your first attempt at an article failed those guidelines. You can appeal that decision via deletion review but I would advise you not to waste your time as three separate admins (including myself) have deemed it a speedy deletion candidate so that is pretty good indication that this was not an arbitrary decision.

I'm sorry that you see my actions and communications as harassment. I know it may feel that way. Please try to understand that your concept of what Wikipedia should be is not necessarily an accurate picture and that you may need to adjust your attitudes and assumptions a bit.

--Richard 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So am leaving comment here -- please leave comment on my page as you have been doing with your slam stuff -- so I know more.

Here's a page "Ridester" and please explain how this compares to my effort tonight. I don't even know how to communicate with the "buzzard like" admins -- or people who just act like authority figures. Rideshare 07:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded with a critique of Ridester on your Talk Page

--Richard 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your opinion on my page if I were to outline the strength and weakness (yea -- in future other's will shine in as wikipedia was supposed to work) of a handful of the rideshare websites. Some are more tailered to "carpool" and some for "rideshare" and some for "split taxi fare". There are various strategies these sites are employing -- and one in particular (goes unnamed here) is just plain copy-cat of others. But then again, I've been told by academics that there is no such thing as a "new idea" ... guess that's why they are not legal professionals right? --- By the way -- you really do need to tone down the hostility towards users, claiming each and every user you upset is doing wikipedia a disservice, or violating "policy", is not too smart. That's my 2 cents and I'm not even calling anyone a type of bird. Will not be able to work on page for few days. And have to figure out how this techy stuff works. Still don't even know how to put in picture, or make a new section - think that's what it's being called. 4.157.14.87 07:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If your article is about rideshare software or rideshare websites, it is almost certainly a needed contribution to Wikipedia provided that you follow our policies and guidelines. You would do well to look at Shared transport, Carpool and Vanpool and figure out how best to fit your article into the existing set of articles. Personally, I think all three of them should be merged but that's a different question.

--Richard 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeremie Poirier 2

Could you please clarify why this young man has no 'notability'. This young man is doing incredibly important work in society; and he has accomplished much more in his first 19 years of life than most people do in a lifetime. Jeremie is an activist known throughout Canada and other parts of the world - he remains grassroots and tries to avoid media, hence the lack of material on him. I feel that he is a prime role model for our children and that he has the right to be featured in the encyclopedia. This young man's accomplishments should not go umnoticed, he has already inspired so many. Turning down this young man is like turning down a better world for our children. Thank you. Million Dollar Youth 05:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great guy. Please refer to WP:BIO for our guidelines regarding biographical articles.

--Richard 05:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Romm and Elaine Doulton

I flagged this article to not be deleted as I was working with the author to straighten out any questionable material. I flagged it as such and also put an explaination on the User Talk page. 5 minutes later you deleted it! I have a copy but why didn't you wait for the corrections before you snipped it. I am new to editing in Wikipedia and all I asked for was some patience. Tejaco14 05:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Igor the otter

Please see this Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Caffe D’Amore

What does notability have to do with the speedy deletion rationale I gave? The problem is not a lack of asserted notability, and I did not use the A7 rationale. The problem is that this is clearly written in an inappropriate advertising tone and would require substantial changes. That's what the db-spam rationale is designed to rid the project of as I understand the speedy deletion process. Erechtheus 12:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, the notability criterion trumps the spam criterion. If it's notable and encyclopedic, then the article should be fixed to resolve the spam issue. If it's not notable and/or not encyclopedic, then the article should be deleted. This is the essence of what I wrote on the AFD discussion page.

There are times when I decline a speedy simply because I don't think the article in question meets the speedy criterion. That doesn't mean I'm 100% confident that it shouldn't be deleted. It means that I think the question deserves a wider and more in-depth discussion. That's why I sometimes say in the edit summary "If you disagree, take it to AFD". Which is what you did and which is fine with me.

--Richard 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think we're in that grey area of policy interpretation that necessarily has to exist. When something like this happens, I like to take the time to make my case and question the deciding admin because there are sometimes policy-driven considerations at play I'm not yet aware of. This appears to be less that than a judgment call. We'll see how AfD goes. Erechtheus 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As the writer of this article, there is no intension for this to be an advertisement. It is a historical account of this company. I studied other companies on wiki before writing this including Peets, Folgers, The Coffee Bean, The San Antonio winery, etc etc. It would seem my article is written in the same tone. If you feel differently about this, please help me fix it. I think a 100+ year old tradition that changed and help shape the hot beverage industry is worthy of its place on wiki.

Dreambuildersco 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a large rewrite of the page. You (both) may wish to reexamine the article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the rewrite was rather radical when you compare it to the article on Starbuck's and Peet's. I think there's room for a middle ground between Baccyak4H's rewrite and the original spammy text.

My advice to Dreambuildersco is to find some sources ASAP. You're not out of the AFD woods, yet. The article could still get deleted if what's left of it is not sourced. Work on finding sources and then you can work with other editors to add in some of the original text in a less spammy tone. --Richard 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

re Car accident?

Sorry to hear about that. I hope you were not too seriously injured. I had a request to make of you but I will wait until you are more fully recovered. --Richard 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

i am fine now. Thanks Richard for your that. What about the request? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are OK.

As coincidence would have it, you have just recently edited the article that I had a question about. Please consult this diff and then tell me if I accurately characterized why the Transport Minister was sacked. I ask you because you speak French and probably better than I do so perhaps you can check the reference and see if I got it right. I had to struggle a little while reading the article and frankly, since it was late at night, I got tired and lazy so I might not have read it correctly. --Richard 23:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in Russian Revolution

Sorry for having offended you. Remember, since the item was unsigned, I was not really criticizing you. I thought that other editor I'm having a somewhat heated debate with just had gone to another computer and sent an article pretending that he was someone else (you). So I thought that he was the Troller, not you. Cheers. --Ludvikus 07:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I know who is that other editor and I am sad to note that Ludvikus continues to jump the gun and accuse everyone who disagree with him in various devious things :( --Irpen 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I find your support of this article so outrages that it is quite impossible for me to Assume Good Faith on your part. I do not intend to offend you - and I deliberately not name you in order not to offend you. But people are devious in real life - though it is you that used that word, not I. I merely responded to an un-signed article - not finding it worthy of consideration. Thereafter, the vauthor of it returned - and signed it. So all's well on that score. --Ludvikus 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted thisbrother

Hello,

I am contacting you because I spent almost an hour composing an article called "thisbrother", only to go back to wikipedia two days later to find it deleted. When I check the delete logs the reason given was Spam. I take offense to such a hurried deletion and reason. I have been using and hearing the phrase "this brother" since I was a kid (I am now 36 years old). I have found some obscure reference on Wikipedia that most people on this earth will not know what it is. For example Odysseus and Calypso had a son named Nausinous. I respectfully asked you. Had I been a famous celebrity or notable person, would it have been deleted so quickly? If so, why?

In my article "Thisbrother" I mentioned my website as an example of how the term was used. I really did reserve that domain over five years ago at time where it cost at least $25 to do so.

I have taken a little time to show you other places on the net where "this brother" has been used. Please reconsider and undelete the page.

Remembering Langston [26] ...It was amazing to think that this brother was able to do so much with so little free time. In all, he wrote some 60 books over four decades, no small feat. He wrote, edited, translated and published at a feverish pace, but it was evidently a labor of love. Even after his death, there was still a considerable amount of his work still to be published...

Michelle Obama goes solo in Iowa [27] ...She said voters should elect the Illinois senator as their next president for his integrity, his guts and the fact that this brother is smart....

Tavis Smily- Interview with Terrence Howard [28] Tavis: The project, though, the fact that a lot of folk just think we don't have, what, the buoyancy or the skill set to be swimmers, but this brother proved that it could be done."

Tavis Smiley about Bob Johnson [29] Tavis: All right, that's media. Reason number two of why racism is no longer a real issue. Bob Johnson owns an NBA franchise. He owns a major professional team in this country. You tell me race is an issue? This brother owns a team.

The New Najee is another classic for sure [30] ...Najee is a cold brother for sure. Just more FUNK for sure. I just started playing the trumpet,so I hope as I learn I get the chance and honor to play with this Brother for sure.

Kanye West: Kanplicated [31] ...I saw his show at [New York club] S.O.B.'s and I was like, 'Man, hip-hop is back again,' " Common said. "It felt so good that it was coming through this brother. I'm honored to be on his album and geeked what the brother is bringing to hip-hop. I don't think nobody is coming with beats and rhymes, putting that package together like this right now."

No Number for This Brother [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.18.163.205 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Spam" was probably an inaccurate description of why it was deleted. "No assertion of notability" would have been better. Moreover, while this may not be one of the criteria for speedy deletion, the underlying reason is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of American slang. Refer to WP:NOT --Richard 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If, after reading these, you feel that I have made a mistake, you are welcome to appeal this decision via WP:DRV. --Richard 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

PortableApps.com?

Can you give me the specific reasons why the PortableApps.com page was deleted?

Our community here at PortableApps.com is committed to advancing the open-source community specifically through portable open-source applications.

According to the [33] home page:

Open

PortableApps.com provides a truly open platform that works with any hardware you like (USB flash drive, iPod, portable hard drive, etc). It's open source built around an open format that any hardware vendor or software developer can use.

Free

The Portable Apps Suite™ is free. It contains no spyware. There are no advertisements. It isn't a limited or trial version. There is no additional hardware or software to buy. You don't even have to give out your email address. It's 100% free to use, free to copy and free to share.

--Macdaddy88 13:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia guidelines are WP:SPAM, WP:CORP and WP:WEB. If, after reading these, you feel that I have made a mistake, you are welcome to appeal this decision via WP:DRV. --Richard 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Richard, it would appear that there may be some confusion as to the nature of this article. First off, the article was not created by any of the folks that run PortableApps.com (note: I'm the founder of the project). Second, PortableApps.com refers to three things. 1. The PortableApps.com community website which is in the top 5,000 websites in the world and receives millions of visitors and has tens of thousands of members. 2. The PortableApps.com project on SourceForge.net, currently at #8... one of the most popular open source projects in the world. And 3. The PortableApps.com software which is used by millions throughout the world and has been reported on by the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, LA Times, every major computer magazine the world over as well as radio and television coverage. I think it a bit odd that PortableApps.com has been removed from wikipedia while other commercial portability projects with far smaller userbases like mojopac and U3 remain. Please reconsider the deletion. CritterNYC 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"No assertion of notability" is the speedy deletion criterion. If, as you say the website has been reported on by a number of media channels, then you are free to re-create the article providing citations to those articles and other coverage. --Richard 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution

It's nice to know there's someone finally who listens. We definitely need you voice. Let me repeat what I've said there - I believe there is a block of editors who are committed to the view that the "Chinese" played a Notable role in the Russian Revolution. However, they've been un-able to produce any solid reference that I could identify. Nevertheless, they seem unwilling to budge from this commitment. So any inpute you bring in is certainly very much appreciated by me. --Ludvikus 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I could not repair your 11th External link. Can you please do so? Numbers 9 & 10 proved very useful. --Ludvikus 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• I'm so pleased to have read you're extremely well-argued possition (and, of course, I'm also pleased that it agrees with mine I agree with it 100%). --Ludvikus 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• I found the reference: Revolution and History: The Origins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919 . You really put things down so well. It would be good if you/we cleaned it up just a bit more - for readability. I am unconfortable about deleting myself that gibberish in blue in front of this reference. Also, I'd like to put your phrase about the notability of facts in boldface for emphasis. --Ludvikus 22:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mikka is now accusing me of "threatening"! I have no idea what he's talking about. And he's reverted my discussion postings. In the mean time I see that you've improved/re-written the article well. But the way things have unfolded I still have no faith in the article unless the sources are actually read. Have you been able to do that? Cheers. --Ludvikus 03:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now I see Mikka has reverted YOU! I can only imagine that he thought it was ME! So now I'm extremely agetated with curiosity as to what you will do. I remember how upset you were when I crossed you out. It's really quite exciting. I am utterly AMAZED that MIKKA reverted YOU!!! --Ludvikus 03:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the reason he gave for reverting you: rm pointless and irrelevant remark about marxism in China) Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Of course I'm tempted to Revert to You - remember I agreed with you 99% - but it's much more interesting to see what you will do in the context of this Reversion of your work. --Ludvikus 03:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, well, he seems to have reverted himself back to you. That's smart, I think. --Ludvikus 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, he didn't revert my lead sentence but that's OK. Please don't revert back to me. The WP:BRD model is (1) edit Boldly (2) Revert if you disagree and then (3) Discuss. I have opened the discussion on the Talk Page. Hopefully, Mikka will respond and explain. --Richard 04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry. I do not make stupid moves. I'm just surprised at your cool-headedness - in light of your prior annoyance with me. I only Crossed out what you wrote. Mikka Blanked it. --Ludvikus 04:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just didn't like my comments characterized as "trolling". I almost never use the term. Besides, I wasn't that annoyed with you. I was just pointing out that the comment was mine and not that of an anonymous troll. --Richard 04:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupations

There was older discussion on a similar issue where you took part. Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Soviet_occupations#WP:SYNT. --Irpen 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit this page and consider if the page protection should still be in place as there have been no additions to the talk page for a week, but a AfD has been lodged. I have moved the discussion to an Archive page but as I have not been monitoring the page I'll leave it to you to decide if the protection should remain. Could you please post an explanation of whatever you decide on the new talk page so that everyone knows what the current status is. Thanking you in anticipation --Philip Baird Shearer 12:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupations

Hi Richard,

could you reapply the page protection, I fear that some users who desire deletion may disruptively edit this page. This page is reasonably mature with a great deal of discussion and revision, so unlike stubs nominated for AfD, will not really benefit from editing while the AfD is open. Thanks. Martintg 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

let's wait and see. If what you fear happens, let me know or post a request on WP:RPP.

--Richard 21:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Martintg 21:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in Russian Revolution

Special:Undelete/Chinese_in_Russian_Revolution.

Don't ever act in this way again: Special:Whatlinkshere/Chinese_in_the_Russian_Revolution_and_in_the_Russian_Civil_War. `'Míkka 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Richard,

How are you? And what have you done above?

I've just posted the above article for deletion. Please go there and make your view/position known.

(I'm really extremely curious as to what you have done for which you appear admonished above!)

Best regards, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not know/remember of that previous AfD. What does that mean in terms of WP Rules? I do not know. Can you advise? Thanks. --Ludvikus 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ludvikus,

The admonishment from Mikka was because I deleted Chinese in Russian Revolution at your suggestion because of "broken English". Mikka restored the deleted redirect and I was going to squawk when I realized that my deletion may have created some broken (red) links from other articles. This is discussed in Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. I apologized and he forgave me. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Redirect.

As for the "previous" AFD, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution. Even though the title has changed, the article is essentially the same. I disagree with your assertion that "the article has changed in the last four days - and not for the better". IMO, the article has changed dramatically since you first nominated it for deletion on October 11th and for the better.

If I were you, I would not assert that it hasn't changed for the better; I would ask whether it has improved to the point that it should be kept. More importantly, I would ask whether it has any hope of being improved to the point that it should be kept.

Many AFDs end as a "Keep" because editors believe that a bad article is on a topic that is encyclopedic and it can be improved to resolve the quality problems. "Delete" decisions are generally based on a topic not being encyclopedic or the quality being so bad that nothing short of a rewrite from scratch will salvage it.

In general, it is considered bad form to renominate an article for deletion shortly after it has survived a previous AFD. That's what you've done. We advised you against it but it seems you didn't understand that people would consider it to be the same article although the title has changed. No big deal; just don't get upset if this second AFD also results in a "Keep" decision.

For my part, I'm going to abstain. I don't feel strongly either way. I'm bemused by the whole thing. I think there is some truth to the article but I'm perplexed by the almost complete lack of English sources on the Internet.

--Richard 05:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The four (4) sources to the opening of our article

(1) Пын Мин. История китайско-советской дружбы. М., 1959. (Peng Ming,

"History of the Chinese-Russian Frienship",

translation from Chinese, Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1959,

original: "Zhong-su yu she", Pekin, 1957 (Russian)

[no quote supplied by WP editor]

(2) Россия и мир глазами друг друга: Из истории взаимовосприятия /

Под ред. А.В. Голубева; РАН. Ин-т рос. истории. - М., 2000.

Вып. 1. - 365 с. ISBN 5-8055-0043-4,

Chapter IV, Section "The Perception of China by USSR Political Elite" (Russian)

"Chinese detachments, together with Latvians, Hungarians, and others

guarded the Soviet government already in 1917-1918"

(3) a b Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen:

The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him, Viking Press 2004: ISBN 0670910880 (hardcover)

"In 1919, 75 percent of the Cheka's central management was Latvian.

When Russian soldiers refused to carry out executions,

Latvian (and Chinese force of some 500 men) were brought in.

(4) a b c Lukin, Alexander (2002). The Bear Watches the Dragon:

Russia's Perceptions of China

and the Evolution of Russian Chinese Relations

since the Eighteenth Century.

China: M.E. Sharpe, p.98.

[no quote supplied by WP editor]

• This is the basis of the article's opening. It is important, therefore, to examine these arefully. To a great extent, the status of the article rests or falls on these 4 items. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Lets look exactly at what our article actually says: Chinese served as bodyguards of Bolshevik functionaries[1][2], served in the Cheka[3], and even formed complete regiments of the Red Army.[4]
2. Now lets look exactlt at what our four (4) sources actually say: "Chinese detachments, together with Latvians, Hungarians, and others guarded the Soviet government already in 1917-1918" and "In 1919, 75 percent of the Cheka's central management was Latvian. When Russian soldiers refused to carry out executions, Latvian (and Chinese force of some 500 men) were brought in.

• Such use of sources (to interpret, selectively edit, and expand on what's actually said) is prohibited by Wikipedia. At best, it's original research.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Latvians, Chinese, Hungarians, and others in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

• As the English language sources made available to us by qutation, the above swhould be the title of our article — at this stage of its development at least. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
• Why are we singling out the Chinese in this way when our sources include the Latvians, Hungarians, and "others" as well? What's the Encyclopedic reason for that? Answer: none.
• How about having Latvians in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War?
• And why not the Hungarians in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War?
• And our source requires this as well Others in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War, no?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Now you're embarking on a crusade which is bordering on original research. My sense of it is that Latvians in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War is an encyclopedic topic and I'm thinking of creating that article based on what I've read. The only thing is that there is even less on that topic than there is about the Chinese! I don't know anything about the Hungarian involvement but the Czechoslovaks were definitely involved and might deserve an article of their own. I don't think that we should go after every ethnic group only the ones that are historically notable.
  • I will comment that you might ask whether Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War merits an article unto itself or if it should just be merged into Russian Civil War. Consult WP:MERGE for explanation of the process.
  • Up to now, the debate has been whether or not this stuff was even true or notable. Now, the debate should shift to whether it is notable enough to warrant a separate article. I'm on the fence on this one. I wouldn't oppose a merger into Russian Civil War or Foreigners in the Russian Civil War. I would oppose deleting the article entirely.
  • --Richard 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Richard, I'm going to pass the bucket to you on this article - I think it's best that way.

Unfortunately, I've not made myself clear to you in the above. I was merely trying to show how silly and ridiculous (in my opinion) it is to brake up the RR & RCV into the nationalities which participated in it.

Another point is what Trotsky wrote about the Chinese and Letts. Why should we not just include the quote in the article instead of try to interpret it? You yourself observed his sarcastic style. Let's put that in (I mean you).

Why is it necessary to have Mikkalai's interpretations in general (in which he drops the Letts)?

I also do not understand why you do not support me on the "Chinese shadows"? If that clouds the isssue - so be it. If there is that ambiguity in the literature - why is it for us to fix that. I do not understand at all the removal of that quote of mine - and the fact that you do not support my view on that one. You know that my reference on it is extremely strong - it includes Trotsky's biographer, as well as the military officer who led the forces which dispersed the Russian Constituent Assembly.

I know that you are the editor who, more than anyone else perhaps, was reading the references provided most carefully. So I'm rather disappointed that you do not take a more assertive position at this moment.

As I understand things better now, because Administrator User:Banno has repeated told me so, Wikipedia works by consensus. So I wish you to be the one to figure out what the consensus is. I know that you too are an Administrator. So that should give you an advantage over trolling, and disruption.

If Letts were included with the Chinese, what justification do we have in splitting that fact. If we're not going to include it in the title of the article, lets at least put it in the body of thev article. By splitting up the two nationalities in this way we give an undeserved weight to the Chinese, and that's precisely Original Research.

Regards, --Ludvikus 13:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong on the "Chinese shadows" quote as apparently does everyone else. "like Chinese shadows" has nothing to do with "Chinese troops". Imagine that Trotsky had eaten Chinese food on that day and written about it in his memoirs. Would that be relevant to this araticle?

I have mixed feelings about the "Trotsky quote" because it makes no sense to put it in "as is" without some interpretation and yet any interpretation is OR. However, the likelihood of finding a reliable source that comments on the quote seems pretty unlikely.

I would support a move of this article to Foreign troops in the Russian Civil War which described all nationalities other than Russians. The way to do that is via WP:RM. We should discuss the requested move on the Talk Page and then move it if there is a consensus for it.

--Richard 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

North Shore Rescue

Hello Richard,

I was working on creating a wikipedia article for North Shore Rescue, I am a member of the organization and am trying to create a informational page that will let people know the history of the team, and what they do. I am a member of the team and am using information that is common domain to describe the team. I'm new to this wikipedia thing but I would like to continue on this project. I work in the education group of the team and feel wikipedia would be another excellent source to supply information on wilderness survival, search and rescue in southwest bc, serivces provided, and a bit of history. I would appreciate your go ahead before I restart my work.

Thanks,

Curtis

(Cojones22 16:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

My "go ahead" doesn't mean anything in this context. Any admin can speedy delete an article. Your article was deleted because of speedy deletion criterion A7 which reads:

No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead.

You are welcome to re-create the article as long as it follows Wikipedia guidelines.

Consult WP:ORG for our guidelines regarding notability of organizations. Also consult our guidelines regarding verifiability and reliable sources.

If your article satisfies WP:ORG, then you can defend it against deletion, speedy or otherwise. If not, then my "go ahead" won't keep another admin from deleting it.

--Richard 17:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

chinese

No reason to overgeneralize the article. Each notable topic belongs to its own artice. You are welcome to write a new artice, if you will find reliable sources which discuss this topic in a scholarly way. `'Míkka 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss with me anything on the topic in this page: User:Mikkalai/chine. Since it is in my user workspace, I have right to ban any trolling comments from Ludvikus from it. `'Míkka 04:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "not a speedy deletion candidate?"

It says in "The Things We Do for Mud//How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck?", that it's being considered for deletion. How can it say one thing, but be the other? I think I'm putting my hangon back in there. Sorry. Wilhelmina Will 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding. Speedy deletion candidates are ones that meet the criteria set forth in WP:CSD. If a page meets one of the criteria, an admin can delete it "on sight" without further discussion. Nominations for deletion require a consensus to be reached via a discussion conducted under WP:AFD rules. The AFD process takes at least 5 days and the AFD notice is itself a "hang on". No admin will delete the article before the AFD is over unless he/she deems the article to meet one or more of the speedy criteria. That's why the {{hangon}} tag is superfluous for an article nominated for deletion.

Also, putting the {{hangon}} tag on an article nominated for deletion is really annoying to admins like me who look for such articles. They basically flag my attention and then, when I get there, I find that there is nothing for me to do because of the AFD in progress. --Richard 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A Tale Etched in Blood and Hard Black Pencil

COuld you explain why this article was deleted? The speedy deletion notification was placed on it about 10 minutes after I created it. I added to the content which was then no different from many other articles on novels but it has now been deleted? Seems rather officious Parslad 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argument about "many other articles on novels" carries little weight as it may simply suggest that other articles need to be deleted as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation of this.

The reason your article was deleted was that it made no assertion of notability. What differentiates this book from the millions that are published every year? Did it win any awards? Was it mentioned in a newspaper? Consult WP:BK for Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the notability of books.

Moreover, the section "Back Cover Description" reads like a verbatim copy of something, perhaps the text from the back cover of the dust jacket. If it is, then it is a copyright violation. Read WP:COPYVIO for an explanation of Wikipedia's policy regarding copyrighted material.

--Richard 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cox v. New Hampshire

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cox v. New Hampshire, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/cox_v_newh.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 06:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted material has been deleted from the article. --Richard 17:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Claremont, CA

(I think this is the correct place to make this request, based on what I saw at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, but if not please let me know where I should make it).

You locked Claremont, CA on 18 July 2007, apparently due to an edit war between User:Tcccfriends and various other editors over the inclusion of marijuana issues in the article. Tcccfriends had similar edit wars on other articles (discussion on Tcccfriends's talk page here). There was an RFC, and, after a bit of wrangling, Tcccfriends stopped editing the articles (and stopped editing wikipedia altogether) on 19 July 2007) (Tcccfriends contribs here).

Could you unprotect the article? Thanks. MrVibrating 10:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MSJapan

Hi Richard, I wanted to reply to your comment at MSJapan's RfA, but the candidate has withdrawn his nomination (and perhaps left Wikipedia), so I'll reply here instead.

I think you misunderstood my comment. I specifically said that MSJapan should not have violated 3RR ("Obviously MSJapan shouldn't have violated 3RR in this incident,..."). My point is that these reverts are being taken out of context, and I don't think they establish a pattern of edit warring. I see this as an isolated incident--basically, MSJapan made a mistake in dealing with a user who was disruptive and tendentious (and whom I later blocked for edit warring on a different article). Take a look at the links atSpecial:Whatlinkshere/User:DDRG--it should be obvious what kind of user DDRG was. MSJapan shouldn't have violated 3RR, but can you show that this was typical behavior for him? I don't see any evidence that it is, and I think his record has been evaluated unfairly. Unfortunately, it looks like his RfA went badly enough that he's decided to leave. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! My first reaction was "Nah. He's not leaving. He just withdrew his RFA. That doesn't mean he's leaving." However, looking around and seeing that he requested deletion of his user and user talk pages, I suspect you may be right. He hasn't posted any sort of "Goodbye!" message but he sure looks like he's doing something like leaving.

And my reaction to that is: "More evidence that he should not have been granted admin privileges."

You may be right about the 3RR not being characteristic but what I really think was the problem was not the 3RR but the contentious and somewhat arrogant interaction style. It's the self-assuredness of the righteousness of his position that bothered me most. Truly being sure you're right will allow one to be patient and ask somebody else to step in because you know they will agree with you. That's what seems is missing. I had hoped he would use this RFA experience to develop that. Instead, he seems to be throwing some sort of tantrum which is not reassuring.

--Richard 17:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Upset about deletion

i'm upset that you deleted my article on the Hansel and Gretal Candy Kitchen. the article was not a joke, and i dont understand why it was deleted. this is the first article i have written on wikipedia, and it is discouraging to have it deleted when i can see no reason for doing so.Scubadiver1411 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)scubadiver1411

I'm sorry that you're upset. I explained the rationale for the deletion on Scubadiver1411|your Talk Page. I'm not sure what else you need in order to understand why it was deleted. --Richard 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Still Upset About Deletion

i know why you said you deleted the article, but i don't understand the reason you think it had no notability. Scubadiver1411 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)scubadiver1411

OK... let's try again. First, "no assertion of notability" means that there is no statement in the article that says "Hey, this store is different from all the others because...". For example, did it win a notable award of some sort or is it unique because it's the oldest store in North Georgia or what? Second, WP:SPAM basically says that the article has to read more like an encyclopedia article than an advertisement. If I remember your article correctly, it didn't have much other than advertising.

Have you read WP:N, WP:SPAM and WP:CORP? Can you explain to me the ways in which it satisfies the criteria set forth in those guidelines?

If you still disagree with my decision, you are welcome to appeal it via the deletion review.

BTW, you don't need to start a new section every time you want to talk to me. Just leave a message in this section. The Wikimedia software will alert me that there is a new message and take me right here to read it.

--Richard 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you i understand now, i just wanted to clarify what you meant. Scubadiver1411 17:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)scubadiver1411

Jehovah's Witnesses and religious freedom

I've put deletion tag, please check the General notability guideline WP:NOTE --Avinesh Jose 07:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a long guideline. I'm familiar with much of it although I wouldn't claim to know it by heart. Which part of it do you think applies in this case? --Richard 07:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have not finished the AFD nomination process. Please re-read WP:AFD and complete steps 2 and 3. Otherwise, the AFD process will not start. I would do it for you but I don't know what your nomination rationale is.

--Richard 07:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content WP:NNC

Why dont you include that article under anything related to "jw"s --Avinesh Jose 07:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't fit in any JW article that I know of. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and religious freedom for a fuller explanation. --Richard 07:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on my talk page. Carter | Talk to me 08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

About adoption

Hi Richard, Thanks for your long reply. Ok, I would be grateful if you are willing to serve as a mentor for me. So please tell me, what shall I do tdoay?--Avinesh Jose 04:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on RfA edit

Hi, Richard, long time no speak. I came across this edit at Kwsr's RfA and was wondering what it was about. It looks irregular -- what does it mean? Thanks. Majoreditor 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As you will see from my comment on the RFA page, it was an unintentional screw-up on my part. --Richard 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal. I spotted it within minutes, and corrected the error. No harm done. ʻAʻole pilikia... no worries. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being understanding about my goofball edit. I do appreciate the heads-up though. In these days of rogue admins, we can't be too careful when an admin does something questionable. It could be the start of a vandalism spree. Better to ask early than to get caught with our pants down. --Richard 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An admin with his or her pants down? Sounds like a new case of Redversism is spreading. Contagious little malady, eh? ;-) --Ali'i 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to turn my webcam off. ;^) --Richard 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment removal

Hey man, don't be upset, it obviously was not in bad faith and no harm is done. We all make mistakes like that. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK error

I don't know everything. In fact, I'm pretty stupid. However, I do know that when you add a hook to the DYK next update, you should add the nominator and author to the credit list further down the page. I'll try to look for it and fix. Archtransit 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're the author of the article. The rules say "Avoid selecting your own suggestions." I'll consider your moving your own hook to the next update page as an "oops"! I'll second it (now) so now it's legit. Archtransit 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies. This is my first time nominating an article for DYK. The process is a bit arcane. --Richard 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kwsn 2

Hi Richard. I'm confused by your, IMHO, slightly aggressive response. I noticed you asked "I'm not sure what Pedro was looking for" so I replied as to what I was looking for. I've not reviewed anything else on that RfA recently. Am I missing something here ? Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Chalk it up to the weaknesses of written communication. I thought you were saying that I was arguing for speedy deletion and I was just saying "No, I wasn't". I'm sorry that you thought I was being aggressive. I guess I was responding to what I thought was criticism on your part. I suspect that we're all in agreement. You had a point you were trying to make. I had a different point. We both made our points and let's not get ourselves in a huff over nothing. --Richard 23:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries my man, it's all good. I certainly wasn't criticising you, just clarifying what answer I expected / hoped for to give me a handle on the candidates ability to follow speedy criteria. See you round the place soon - best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties

On 30 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada

On 1 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute?

Why are you calling vandalism a dispute? Calling 'Ireland': 'Northern Ireland' is just stupid: like calling 'the USA': 'Minnesota'. It's just dumb - not a 'dispute'. Colin4C 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on Talk:Anti-Catholicism --Richard 17:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute?

I am the person who has been changing Ireland to Northern as you see my point is that Northern Ireland and the Republic are two very different states (one obviously a Republic and one belongs to UK. It seems to points out that Ireland (and by referring to Ireland you are referring to the Republic of Ireland) is a Protestant country when it actually isn't, I would prefer that it should be changed to Northern Ireland to avoid confusion and annoyance from fellow Irishmen like myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishman2007 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost Aztec Calendar Round image

Richard, as an FYI, the "Aztec" wikiproject's lead image, Image:Calendario_Axteca.png, has been deleted, perhaps because it was unsourced. FYI, Madman 13:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew that. However, since I didn't upload it, I have no idea of what its original source was. It is very likely a copyvio since it doesn't look like an amateur job. --Richard 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this this

Hi, Richard. Can you take a look at this and weigh in? I believe the section is non-noteable original research which should be deleted. However, I would like to have an experienced editor such as yourself make a call on it. Thanks. Majoreditor 04:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I did look at it and deleted the text in question. I was going to ask why you wasted my time by making me look at it when it was such an obvious candidate for deletion. Then, I looked at the edit history and saw that you had already deleted the text once. Good call. Always better to call in neutral third parties rather than to engage in an edit war. BTW, I notice that you aren't an admin. Isn't it time you did your civic duty and volunteered for the mop squad?

--Richard 04:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. And, thanks for the admin suggestion. Honestly, I prefer to toil away as an editor; at present I don't think I need the buttons. Majoreditor 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		It is my pleasure to award Richard, this Barnstar of Diligence in recognition of all his hard work in raising Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties(this is how we met) Avinesh Jose 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Richard 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:SCOTUSCase

You moved this template without discussion with the relevant WikiProject (WP:SCOTUS) and without any talk page discussion. While I'm a strong proponent of WP:BOLD, what you did was plainly rude. The name SCOTUSCase has been around longer than you have, and frankly, the new title is horrible. Please revert your move of the template and the template talk page; if you'd like to discuss a possible move of the template, you can do so on the template's talk page or on WikiProject SCOTUS's talk page. --MZMcBride 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity

Hey I think it is time to remove this line from the article "In the west, organized Arianism coexisted with Catholicism until the Byzantine reconquest in North Africa, the Council of Toledo in Hispania, and the 7th Century in Italy.[citation needed]" Since it has not been sourced. LoveMonkey 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to this at Talk:History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In brief, I have mixed feelings and I would like to understand better what you object to in the sentence. --Richard 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Four Points by Sheraton (Dubai). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rai-me 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Leavetaking

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leavetaking, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apodosis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Leavetaking

A tag has been placed on Leavetaking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition that has been transwikied and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The "Wanna Get Away?" Barnstar
		Sometimes, you just want to get away spryde | talk 19:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Franks

Per your request [34] LoveMonkey (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message thanks for helping out my students! You made a lasting impression on them! Thelmadatter (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Leigh! Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving.

--Richard (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

Hi, would you please be so kind to help in the following: to tell User:Gancefort, that he should not delete my comment? Regards--KarlV (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Hi Richard. I need another set of eyes to examine the article on Christianity. User Daanschr is removing a sourced sentence from encyclopedia Britannica, claiming that he doesn't consider it a reliable source unless he can examine the primary research used to compile the statistics. I maintain that he's trying to engage in Original Research. IMO he's not familiar with WP policy on reliable sources, verifiability and OR. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I went over to look at the issue expecting to find a trollish edit. However, although his approach of deleting "Europe" is poor, Daanschr has a point. See my comments over at Talk:Christianity --Richard (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Majoreditor (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point of view re: Jehovah's Witnesses page

Richard, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at recent edits on the main JW page and the recent discussions between Marvin Shilmer and other editors there? Thanks! Dtbrown (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hello, On August 1, you fully protected the page League of United Latin American Citizens, citing the need to stop edit-warring over the article and encourage the participants to reach consensus. Unfortunately, they failed to do so - in fact, there has been no discussion on the talk page whatsoever since then. I can only assume they didn't care enough about their argument to talk about it. However, the article has now stayed fully protected for four months - surely long enough for the original edit warriors to have lost interest and moved onto other things. Do you agree that it is now safe to unprotect the article? Was there any need to keep it protected for this long? Terraxos 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. It's way overdue for unprotection. I've unprotected it. Thanx. --Richard 06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Desertec

Hey Richard,

I see that the restoration of the article has provided sources. My deletion summary had "Crystal ball" as the additional reason. The version I deleted struck me as newsworthy but not encyclopedic and so my deletion was by A7, not the NOT, just for clarification. The deletion inspired cleaning it seems, but mind you I do believe this is the worst way to "force" article cleanup.

Anyway, I like it now. Thanks for the work. Keegan^talk 09:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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