User talk:Skyerise/Archive 2010

Waldorf and related

Thanks for all the cleanup you've been doing on these sites! Nice to have an expert equipped with a fine-toothed comb. hgilbert (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

an/i

The requestor consented to closing the thread--he did not consent to collapse it. Please uncollapse. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Yworo (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You basically did ok there. It's tricky when you decide to help in one of these thoroughgoing messes :) DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Service award per WP:SERVICE

This editor is a
Yeoman Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Yworo, and welcome to the little club of silly taxes. Thank you for your contribution. I hope you like the place and decide to write more articles on silly taxes.

Luckily, there's not yet a tax on trying to build bridges. :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your calm, logical, and utterly sensible statements at WP:AN/I Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Calm and Socratic? Are we talking about the same editor? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's true. Applying a pin to a bubble of hyperbole is not Socratic. For it to be Socratic, I'd have to get you to apply it yourself. :-) Yworo (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Demiurge

Hey come back to the article so we can improve it.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

edit warring

I see that you are now edit warring at GNU. Please stop, you're now on the edge of WP:3rr. If revert another edit to that article over the next 24 to 36 hours, you will most likely be blocked from editing. If you have a content disagreement with other editors, please use the article talk page, edit warring will not bring the outcome you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, was already going to the talk page. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I managed to learn about edit warring and 3RR without being blocked for it, and I intend to do my best to keep my record block-free. Yworo (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

What are you talking about?
The matter has been resolved by the other editor becoming reasonable and removing his own outrageous statements.
Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was still the 29th. Yworo (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it probably IS still the 29th somewhere on the planet ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Regarding this edit and your associated edit comment: quotations should not be italicized as it only makes them harder to read, especially in references where the font is smaller
Is that your opinion, or is it WP policy? If the former, I disagree. If the latter, which policy? (i.e. please provide a link.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's in the Manual of Style. I'll see if I can find it. Yworo (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's here. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Double thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Yworo (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text-based external links?

Could you explain what you mean in your comment here regarding "text-based external links?" I'm not sure what you are referring to. Before I removed it, the list didn't contain external links, but references. Granted, these references were just the previous external links, formatted as references. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the previous version, linked at the beginning of the discussion, where the links were actually from the text in the table, rather than formatted as references. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you clear that up in your comment? The external links were reformatted on June 2. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your complaint at WP:AN3

See Ravensfire's update to the 3RR report. Are you willing to make the same assurance, that you will wait for the talk discussion to conclude before making more reverts on the contested issue at Federal Reserve System? If so the report might be closed on that basis. I take note that you seem to have three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Boyle

Hello, Yworo. I apologize for the unconstructive edit that I made to the Robert Boyle article earlier tonight. I was just so sick of the ongoing conflict and wanted it to end. I'm glad that you cited a source that describes him as English, as that appears to be the most accurate description. Cheers. John of Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

edit-police at Federal Reserve System

hey Yworo! first, thanks for your comments on my talk page, I really appreciate it. I agree with your edits on the Federal Reserve System and with your comments in the history. But notice that all of your and my edits are gone now—in fact, we had a net regression, as user "Dark Charles" pompously rolled in to declare ad hoc Creature from Jekyll Island "the nonsense book." Doesn't it seem as though some kind of unfair editing-protection is being given to this article? Can we flag this article and its edits as in need of external review by an admin? ganjadi (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Astrology software

Hi, I'd be very grateful - and I'm sure others would be too - if you could briefly outline your concerns in a new section on the talk page (I'm not saying they're baseless, I just want to get the ball rolling and if I do it the merits of he discussion will probably come second to tedious meta discussion about me). Verbal chat 11:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous warnings

Please do me a favour and try not to issue frivolous and untrue "warnings" as you did here. If as you state you wish to be an admin some day then mistakes like you have done can come back to haunt you, the slightest of checks on who I notified about the new thread would see that it wasn't canvassing and i'm sure you are now emabarressed and contrite about you blatant mistake and you will strike your "official warning" and hopefully it wont happen again. Mo ainm~Talk 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

In the thread "Conflict of Interest by Ender2070 (talk • contribs • logs)" I notice your name all over User talk:Ender2070 and thought you might have an opinion. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mo Saheed

Hello Yworo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mo Saheed, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: That the individual is a chairman and CEO as well as a founder of several fractional ownership properties, in addition to mention in reliable, third-party sources, is sufficient to assert notability. If you feel the subject is not notable, please take it to AFD. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Banks

Hi, you didn't reply to my answer to your comment over at the talk page of Federal Reserve System. I wonder if you saw it? I was also wondering if you would now agree with me that the Federal Reserve Banks are most accurately characterized as independent quasi-government entities. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't see it. Been busy with other things. The lead looks really quite improved. Thanks for the update. Yworo (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Asimov

You are, of course, correct. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification?

Regarding the {{cn}} on Wyatt Earp, I'm assuming (guessing) that it's needed to demonstrated his Odd Fellows membership?
If so, what's the status of File:WyattEarpIOOFMembershipCard.jpg, and if it's sufficient, how does one cite it?
If not, what sort of citation is needed? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the image is not adequate citation (images can be Photoshopped). It needs citation like the other entries. And presumably wherever the image was obtained from has some text about it? Yworo (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. images can be Photoshopped. Well yes. But text citations can be fraudulent too.

Thanks for your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for a price

"we can't use web searches or articles that must be purchased as sources" -- Half of that surprises me. Since when haven't we been able to use articles that must be purchased as sources? -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can use the article if we can cite it (presumably it's also in print?), but we can't link to it. Our linking policy say we can't link to material that must be purchased, or even free content that is behind a login. Yworo (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. This tells us: Outside of citations, external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers (bold in the original). -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, damn place changes all the time. Don't think that was there when I read it, but I could be wrong. Maybe it was added, or maybe it'd been temporarily removed, who knows! Anyway, carry on.... Yworo (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This may have been temporarily removed, and of course you may have hurriedly overlooked it (I wouldn't blame you for that), but there's nothing new about it. Of course, use by others of sources that cost money is a major irritation at best. (And the whole of this article on the photographer/mogul looks screwy.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I may have overlooked it. I'm not paying for some article to verify that it sources our content. Especially if there are freely accessible sources that would verify the same content. I suspect our new editor is the same as the old editor, but unless I see both accounts being used, I'm going to ignore that. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seems we have yet another shiny new user on the article. Yworo (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a mild article on a photographer/mogul. Try this (and then see its wild 'n' crazy talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is my camera? I already am a CEO and own a gallery, now I just need to take a few pics and create an article about myself! :-) Yworo (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Spoilsport! (It's eminently deleteworthy, but I'll let somebody else do the honors.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted with UNDO and warned that links to the US Constitution and US Census are unsourced

I am interested that you oppose the addition of a definition of what States' Rights are. You don't like the US Constitution sources and US Census links I added. Why do you oppose mentioning Article Four,4,1, requirement the each state have a "Republican Form of Government" in the article? Why do you oppose mentioning US Constitution and Amendments about elections of US Senators, US Representatives and US Presidents?

With Definition I added: [1]

With your preferred (and I think inadequate) definition: [2]

[States' Rights] Page History: [3]

Please specify, by editing the text I added, which portions do not meet the Wikipedia policies as you alone see them. Editing "good faith edit" that you disagree with is constructive help is preferable to deleting out right with UNDO. Because of how vague the definition is in your preferred version of the article, it would strongly benefit from you improving the material I added. Npendleton (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

Hi, you seem to be one of the editors who actually understand BLP. So does Rob and Wildhartlivie. I'm sorry if I missed anyone else but most who are commenting have very low edit counts or are IP's who have had trouble. What I want is to clean up this article because the allegation of sections are just plain wrong for a BLP article. The main source that the other sources are using is a rag sheel tyoe situation. What do you think we should do with the article? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oksana Grigorieva

• Oksana Grigorieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, engage in discussion, at Talk:Oksana Grigorieva. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please note I rolled back your edits (assuming good faith), because the source now has "Robyn" and not "Grigorieva". "This version CORRECTS to say Robyn Gibson" now appears on that AP source. -84user (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More Mel Gibson

Just to let you know that the anon IP may be User:HarveyCarter who edits under a 92 IP range and comments about sexuality, racism (such as this) and other bad celebrity behaviour. There are a number of talk pages with notes about him as this is something that has happened many times. Examples are Talk:Cary Grant#Grant not an icon and Talk:John Wayne#Edits from Banned User HC and IPs. I'm not sure if User:Crohnie is aware of this, but I think she is. Rossrs (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. He's getting a bit out of control. Yworo (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Out of control" is also part of the pattern. ;-) Rossrs (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is he a confirmed sock? If so, we should remove all edits per deny. Which IP or Ip's are being used? Also I want to let you know that your edit here I think is a good move. If others revert it back in I will back you up on this. There was just too many main stream reliable sources questioning the reliability of the tapes to allow that information to stay as it was. Thank you for being bold and removing them. Rossrs, we could use an editor of your capabilities at this article. Please stick around. :) Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback has been removed

I've removed your rollback rights because you appear to have been using them in a content dispute on Talk:Mel Gibson. Rollback is solely for "reverts that are self-explanatory" such as those dealing with "obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit" (see WP:ROLLBACK). It's not clear that the IP is a banned user (rather than just a blocked user). However, if you have WP:SPI evidence that I'm unaware of or some other explanation I'd be happy to reconsider. EyeSerene^talk 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. EyeSerene^talk 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored, my concerns were unfounded. EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Double Indemnity

This is a work-in-progress between myself and editor Dohhh22, as you'll see if you check the edit history; could you please refrain from making your stylistic suggestions till we get it worked out between ourselves first? Thank you. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When you resized the "blond wig" image here, you squeezed the caption and forced a different stacking, which caused an extra line and a widow. I accepted and accomodated your override of my manual sizing (which is admittedly discouraged but is only a guideline and not forbidden), and I trimmed the caption so it would fit in your newer, narrower measure. Then you came back and reverted my edits to the caption, causing it to fall back to an ugly, unbalanced, three-line caption with an unsightly widow. Since I am assuming your good faith in the edits you made, I'll ask you to consider the ripple effects of those edits. A malformed caption is a far greater blight on a professional-looking page than a photo that's 10% larger than an arbitrary guideline. If you change my size, please don't also thwart my attempts to clean up the aftermath of that change. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is what the style guidelines say about image sizes, thumb defaults and user-preference-set defaults:

The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone.

I offer this not to be argumentative but as a way of saying that it is only a guideline, and that the goal of all of us should be an attractive page with maximum readability. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from Abhayakara

Thanks for the note, and for the good debate. Please let me know if you notice me going against the grain again--the review you've provided has been helpful, and it's largely due to your willingness to engage constructively, even though I don't think I was doing a very good job of that myself, that we seem to have actually improved the article on Michael Roach. Abhayakara (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Island of California

Hello. Those links were originally listed on the page for Las sergas de Esplandián, I just moved them to the "Island" article because I thought they were out of place on the "Esplandian" page. If you think they were both bunk, fine, but I thought one of them had a good depiction of the island of California. Anyway, I think the "Island" article should mention and have a link to Queen Califia. I might add it. 98.221.121.72 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The behavioral organization not spam

Hello I am working with the behavior analysis project. They do have a special interest group on reinforcement learning & robotics Jcautilli (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Joseph (photographer)

Hi, Yworo. If you don't mind my asking, what was it about Shwepp (talk · contribs) that tipped you off that they might be a sockpuppet of Matt ivnet (talk · contribs)? I only ask because I'd really like to learn how to better spot these on my own, if possible. I'm not an admin, just a recent changes and counter-vandalism patroller, so if my question is inappropriate, please accept my apologies. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I only knew because I recently been involved in reporting the previous sockpuppets about a week ago. This was the fourth in a series of "new" editors that somehow was attracted to the article, found the same borderline sources, and put a most positive spin on what those sources said... What I don't understand is what makes them think they are fooling anybody... Yworo (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not an admin either. I seem to have a knack for identifying sock puppets though and am trying to join the SPI team as a trainee clerk. For more info on identifying socks, Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry is useful. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Yworo. So, if I read you rightly, it popped up on your watchlist and it caught your eye since you were already familiar with the case? Shoot, I was hoping that there was some slick filter-utility-tool thingie that was automagically raising the red flags for you. ;-) Just the same, nice catch and best of luck on joining the SPI team! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good for you...

— for that Third Man deletion. Salute. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I've already got my Criterion DVD. :-) Yworo (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, me too! It wasn't until I saw that Criterion one that I saw an actual rat scuttling along parallel to Lime as he slooshes along in the sewer. How'd you like to be the "rat wrangler" on that shoot? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, who wants to watch those crappy internet copies anyway. And I'll pass on rat wrangling! :-P Yworo (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

archetypal pedagogy

Hi, Why are tou delete the reference:

• (in English) Ed. LLC Books, Carl Jung: Toni Wolff, Emma Jung, Bollingen Tower, Frederic Fappani, Philemon Foundation, C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich May 2010. ISBN 1156825954 , ISBN 978-1156825952

Just because you are thinking that's sort of book are bad book ? Can you explain to me that are "bad" or "good" book for wikipedia ? Have you really read this book ? Anyway ... why do you delete ? 77.202.62.249 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they appear to be print-on-demand book club books without any author. They do not appear to be reliable sources, and Wikipedia policy suggests that we not link to sources which do not have a reputation for being reliable. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the publisher's web site. Does it look like a reputable, reliable publisher to you? I haven't seen the books, but Amazon describes one as being 40-some pages. I suspect they are just copies of related Wikipedia articles or other free-licensed online materials. Yworo (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Strangelove: split the difference

According to online script, it is a P (as in burp, hahaha), but it's also L-E, not E-L. Cheers -- HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You might take it up with User:Burpelson AFB, who's the resident expert on the matter. I don't think that script site is reliable. Yworo (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. One tries. -- HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot. I suspect one can find online scripts with many variants, but the film doesn't lie. :-) Yworo (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That would definitely come under the heading Incontrovertible! -- HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Y as a consonant

You undid the remarks on the letter Y being regarded as a consonant because "there's a "J" in the basic modern Latin alphabet, so this is inconsistent". Even though we do have the letter J, it is very rarely used to represent the consonant /j/ in English. (The only word I can think of is Hallelujah.) There has been a discussion about considering Y as a consonant in the article too, and I believe it should be noted. In every American and Canadian school, Y is taught as a consonant letter. On the Wheel of Fortune, you can call a Y without buying it as a vowel. Dictionaries back up my reasoning in my edit, as "The consonant sound Y is not consistently represented in English spelling by any other letter, which is probably why we tend to think of it mainly as a consonant." Again, J should not be the reason for reverting my edit, for this is the English Wikipedia, and in English, there is no consistent way to represent the phoneme /j/ without the letter Y. --Moopstick (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to make tables?

On a recent edit, you removed a bulleted list to the Mortal Kombat page, which I am perfectly fine with, it looked terrible.(Plus much of it is unreferenced) But I would like to make a table for the characters that are confirmed and make it not generate a lot of unessecary whitespace. Could you please help me on that? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no reason to lengthen the article that way. Listed in a sentence is fine. Frankly, it's trivia and if I were in a bad mood, I'd simply remove the list altogether. Yworo (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I was just curious. Although I think you misread WP:Trivia, it says not to remove trivia and also, to fighting games a character roster is quite essential to the article. I apologize for taking up your time. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A character roster verges on "howto". It's not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia article should give a general outline of a game. When it starts to add details only needed for playing the game, it's moved out of encyclopedic territory and into fancruft or a howto article. And WP:TRIVIA doesn't say not to remove trivia: it specifies how to tell details that should be merged into an article from trivial details. The former are merged and the latter are removed... Yworo (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

re your message

I agree that that would be a proper result, if it wasn't the case already. But I'm not experienced with doing that with existing articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't do it right now, as the editor involved would probably just revert it. It seems they have 3 reverts on the main article, and their tag has been removed again. If they restore it, take it to WP:3RRN. If the user is then blocked, it will make it easier to establish the redirects. OTOH, when an admin responds, they may just replace the articles with redirects. You might make a request to this effect on the respective talk pages. Yworo (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tx. It looks as though a sysop stepped in and redirected the articles (while declining one of hte A10s, without any rationale).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Ok Yworo. Thanks for your concern. Turned Eyes (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com

You wrote: "Amazon.com may not be used to source anything, as reviews on Amazon are not considered to be reliable sources. In fact, we are not supposed to even link to it, it's a commercial site which sells books. Yworo (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)"

This was a citation of a signed independent editorial review, not a user review and not a product description. It was more than sufficient for its purpose, to show that the episode the third mouse is a parody of the movie the third man.μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on moving

Will admit freely I didn't know what I was doing; sorry for creating the mess to clean-up. However, the only thing I find a bit odd is that between you and the admin who did the cleanup, nobody simply did the move themselves. If the edit was made in good faith and you see no problem for it, then why not simply do the correct procedure rather than all of this revert business? Vertigo Acid (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just helping out, so I can't move over existing pages any more than you can. The best I could do was fix the issue and provide instructions for the proper process. In general, moves should be proposed and discussed before executing. There may be specific reasons the editors of those article chose to make an exception to the general rule, so it's always best to propose a move and wait for responses. Yworo (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks again for the info! Vertigo Acid (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing Double Indemnity

It has shaped up nicely, hasn't it? The credit goes to D'ohh, who did all the heavy lifting — I was just the waterboy. I "parked" Billy's photo at my userpage after it got deleted from DI because it was showing up as a scarlet-lettered orphan and I didn't want it being easy pickin's for dumping till I could try to save it, which attempt failed. I took it off my page (having put it into the article on Wilder himself). Thanks again for the kind words; if you should bump into D'ohh, please tell him/her — s/he'd bask in the notice. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gold as an investment

You wrote, "How can you know that it's a 'professional investment manager' as you claimed in an edit comment when you don't even know their name?" Sorry to say it seems like you're not paying close attention to the content at hand, confusing Tyler Durden (a financial writer's pseudonym) with Hinde Capital (a professional investment manager). Do you really have any doubt as to whether Hinde Capital is a real investment manager? As for Zero Hedge's reputation, it has an online following equal to that of Fox Business News, putting it in the top 10 specialist sources of financial news and opinion in the United States. I would think this qualifies it to summarize a report by Hinde. As for warning me about edit-warring, you might think twice before reverting material that you claim is citing opinion when it's not, or reverting material on the grounds that pseudonymous authorship is unacceptable which it is not. --Stybn (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There were two things sourced to zerohedge. One is an opinion piece by a pseudonymous author and has no connection to Hinde Capital. The other is by the same pseudonymous author, and uses a copyright violating copy of a document on scribd as a source. The document is clearly marked "This Document is not for Distribution". You have no proof that this "Tyler Durden" is affiliated with Hinde Capital. Even if he claims to be, there is no way that could be taken as reliable. The fact that he uses a purloined document as a source argues against his affiliation. If he were affiated, the document would be on the Hinde Capital site and not so marked. Now, if you happen to find the documents publicly posted on the Hinde Capital site, that would be different. But as it is, these are both pseudonymous opinion pieces, one relying on a purloined document. We cannot link to either, even as an external link, much less as a reference. Yworo (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and zerohedge is a blog and "Tyler Durden" is one of the owner/operators. That fails two specific requirements of our reliable source policies. First, material written by "Tyler" is self-published. Self-published material can only be used as a source about itself. Second, it's a blog, and we do not allow sourcing to blog postings, with the exception of notable people who have been independently published. (See WP:SPS). So, we could never permit the use of a pseudonymous blog post as a source, even if we could allow other non-blog types of pseudonymous sources. The fact that it's a self-published pseudonymous blog post just puts the final nail in the coffin. And I seriously dispute you assertion that zerohedge "has an online following equal to that of Fox Business News". What's your source for that assertion (and zerohedge is the wrong answer). And even if it's true, I'm sure most major porn site have an online following equal to that of Fox Business News, but that doesn't make them reliable sources for anything. Volume is not an argument for reliability. Yworo (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never claimed or suspected that Durden/ZH has any relationship to Hinde, and I don't know why you think otherwise. C'est la vie. --Stybn (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree + question

Hi, have you started an SPI on [this editor yet?] I am curious to know because as an outsider who has Fence and windows on my watchlist. I'd be interested in what you have gathered up on the editor. [4] I'd appreciate it if you would link to the SPI case or where ever you are accumulating your information, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for a SPI, the user in question has admitted being the previous IPs. I am creating a user conduct RFC, here. You're welcome to add an outside view. Yworo (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I may just do that. :) Thanks for the link too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Henry Sharp

Finally got around to reviewing as you requested, and I've found a potential problem. Please note that I was delayed because of a trip out of state to attend a funeral, and I've just gotten back at nearly bedtime, so it's quite possible that I missed something and wrongly thought that you did something wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You may have noticed that this is now in the queue; I'm sorry that I never finished doing it myself, but I'm beginning grad school in less than a week, so there are plenty of preparations to make. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am choosing to handle

the issue of Jacob Epstein's nationality in the same way that it is dealt with in Gaston Lachaise - which is to say, include both nations. It is possible that you might have an opinion on this so I figured I'd point out my edit. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Though I am not sure that Epstein changed nationalities. Just added one. Carptrash (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

During that period, dual citizenship was pretty much non-existent. Yworo (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead para of Groucho Marx

Yworo wrote: Please don't rearrange the lead paragraphs of Groucho Marx. The info about being third-born was in the right place. It does not belong in the lead sentence, per our Manual of Style.

Sigve answers: Then consider changing the entries of the other Marx-bros. I was just trying to harmonize the entries for all five brothers. 84.210.46.118 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason leopold rfc

Sorry for the delay, I will comment on your rfc today when I get back from vacation. Bonewah (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill W (redirect) versus Bill W. (article)

They actually aren't on the same pages. The categories are on (invisible to the naked eye) redirection pages, whereas the see also links are only on pages where the subject itself has the unusual form of name (such as Bill W) -- which I believe is of note. Why not? Anyway, I'll lay off adding them but think See-also links at the bottom, added at the occasional "Bill W." type article is pretty harmless and, in fact, helpful, with the category itself at the "Bill W" article (without the period), which is a redirect page.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That should be done with a hatnote, shouldn't it? Yworo (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I misunderstood the above. Really, see also is for topics related to the subject. It's not for essentially a list of unrelated links. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Henry Sharp

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sisters in same paragraph

Regarding using Audrey, when another Hepburn is in the same paragraph, it is customary to use first names to differentiate them. Don Williams (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger

I have e-mailed Professor Waugh to find the appropriate page for the citation, as pgs. 261-263 don't appear to have the entire citation. He expressed his view points in an e-mail. Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have/haven't read the whole book either? Hmm.... Yworo (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Professor Waugh said:

Raj: You'll note that much of my discussion concerns the notion of linear time and its relationship to modernity.. This is where I place my critique...it is within the context of a western notion of 'tradition.' My point is that without time consciousness, we would not have the same concept of the 'tradition' within "traditional." So the academy comes to define what it "the tradition" using its own categories generated from its own Western time consciousness. I think this may be problematic.

I talk about Freudianism as an example of the direction taken in the academy to apply its own analytic categories arising from its own notions of what defines "the tradition." In this context, I am speaking in more general terms of applying categories of understanding that are not found in the tradition being described; with regard to Doniger, I suggest that she is an example of someone who approaches Hinduism using categories generated out of other contexts and not grounded in 'the tradition.'..and indicate she is known to apply categories that are suggestive of Freudianism to the sacred texts of Hinduism.

I do not have a copy of the book, and, because of a crashed hard drive, do not have my original article, so this is the best I can do at the moment....Here's the section as I wrote it...I don't have the printed edition, but I can't think it deviated much; I really don't know. You'll have to check the printed copy.

Thanks, Raj2004 (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Strangers synopsis

Is it my imagination or did 82.132.136.146 screw up the Strangers on a Train plot summary with each and every edit? Am I just in that bad a mood, or were those some terrible edits? If you tell me I'm wrong, I'll eat a Peppermint Patty and keep my mouth shut. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not each and every edit. But it does appear to be rather poorly written. Most of the details seem right, but ignoring whether we need that much detail, there seem to be some grammatical errors, run on sentences, and other examples of poor writing. I'm not sure just reverting it is the right answer, probably just needs copyediting and removal of a few unnecessary details. I got distracted by the pointless trivia included by previous editors in service to the pop cult god. Yworo (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for your vigilence on the pop cult front; if it were my planet, all that stuff would go. As for the synopsis, I don't want just to revert it, either... maybe I'll get the gumption to chip off some of the crap, but not tonight. Thanks for exonerating my dim view of that edit. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for objective participation in discussion

As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Retracting comments

Two things actually, and take this as coming from an uninvolved party without an ax to grind either way:

1. Kicking off a proposal to add something contentious with "The lame excuse of a long-expired prior consensus has..." is among the last things to do. Keep in mind that a discussion should be kept civil and polite. That isn't. It's belligerent and dismissive, almost trolling for a fight which is center productive for getting things done.
2. Civility and politeness is expected on both sides of a discussion. Deal with the arguments and positions presented and avoid sniping at the editor making them. Even if they are taking shots at you or something you feel strongly about. (And yes, this can apply in varying degrees to those that have posted in opposition to the suggestion to add infoboxes to Yeats, Pound, Joyce and H.D.)

- J Greb (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I get your point. That's why I didn't include those comments on the other discussions. Not sure there is much point in trying to retract them on the one discussion, as I'm sure someone will manage to find fault with my doing that! Yworo (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Best thing to do in that case may have been to leave the text with a strike through, add a polite phrasing right after it, and add a note to the discussion acknowledging you error. At least that way you could honestly say "I realized I misspoke and corrected myself without some else pointing it out to me." Something to remember for the future though, yes? - J Greb (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Much appreciated.Dohhh22 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blumenschein

I'm very taken by Blumenschein, his landscapes especially. We might put together a gallery at the foot of the article. Any preferences for inclusion? Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will get back to you on that soon. I'd intended to search out pre-1923 works and put them on the Commons, so I will go ahead and do that first. Yworo (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've uploaded all the pre-1923 works I could find to the commons. As to potential post-1923 fair use images, if they will let us, I'd suggest these two:

• Ranchos Church with Indians (from [5]), oil on panel, 14 3/8" x 23 3/4"

  This is the famous Ranchos de Taos church from a different angle than the well-known Georgia O'Keefe painting or Ansel Adams photograph. Since there is no date listed, it's possibly pre-1923. If you can find out let me know.

• The Chief Goes Through (from [6], scroll down to section titled "Regrets"), 1956, oil on canvas. Stark Museum of Art, Orange, Texas.

Yworo (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Solid choices Yworo. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yworo (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Arabi

You have reverted my additions with out any notice of how that material is copyrighted which i have added. Well to clear things i am the author of that article and i have added that information to the article here so when i am the author how that information is copyrighted and who claims the copy right, surely i do. so please do not interfere what you have no knowledge of hope to hear from you soon

Regards.

Abrar Ahmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrar47 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I have changes the license of the article to public domain, as it has been published only to scribd and i dont have any contracts with publishers to publish it. i do hope now you are satisfied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrar47 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC) --Abrar Ahmed (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes and other matters

Hi Yworo, Meant to do this sooner, but got distracted. Regarding the infoboxes - I don't hate them, but I think they don't work well on all articles. At the moment only two of my articles don't have infoboxes - Edmund Evans and Ezra Pound. I've left it off Evans because the infobox detracts from a nice image and the information is in the lead. Pound is complicated (on lots of levels!): born in Idaho, but moved east at 18 months; married to one woman, but had a 50 year long affair with another; one child born to the mistress (presumably his); another child born to wife (not his); US citizen, but charged with treason and lived most of his life abroad. Compounded is the fact that his influences spanned centuries of literature and he influenced most 20th century poets. So better without an infobox. Also, the image is quite. An articles where I'd remove the infobox is True at First Light - have a look at the talkpage discussion about the infobox. I hate the page format with the infobox, but added it back for the GA review. Another is Ernest Hemingway - I've left the infobox because the image is pretty bad - but like Pound, Hemingway had many influences and influenced many; tending the infobox is a chore. Just wanted you to understand, that in my view sometimes they're fine, but other times, when the information is murky, fine to remove.

On another subject - I think the Blumenschein article has a lot of potential. I love that period of western art - but I'm also fascinated that he was a magazine illustrator. I'm wondering how much work he did in chromozylography , which by necessity uses the broad patches of coloring. I threw together the chromozylography in hurry to turn blue a red link on Edmund Evans, but at the time wondered who was in the west in the late 1890s making magazine illustrations of native Americans. Do you mind if I do some digging on this? Sorry, seem to have written an essay here! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder about those influenced and influenced by fields. I think maybe they should be removed from the template itself. It seems to be the number one general objection to infoboxes for people. I wonder if it's been discussed on the infobox talk page.

I'm sure all the Taos artists pages have a lot of potential. I am in Taos so I have access to a lot of historical material that I simply haven't taken the time to pursue yet. Except for the Couse article, the articles were stubs when I started and needed simple basic expansion using readily available materials. The Blumenschein House and museum are open to locals for free on Sunday, and I was planning on visiting there today. If I find out anything about his magazine illustrations and chromozylography, I'll let you know. Yworo (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll also take my camera. There must be more interesting things to photograph in that house than the bedroom! Yworo (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm totally jealous that you're in Taos. Have fun. Enjoy the sun. You've found a really good topic to work on. Go for it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Arabi copyright

Thanks that you have confirmed that i am the author. We have a website but this article is not hosted to that website rather we use scribd to host all of our articles and then we give their links into our website because this seems easier to us. I have to upload this file again but i will create a public domain license on the top page of that article. Inorder to see this article on our website see this link http://ibnarabifoundation.com/publications/articles.html

Thanks for your references

--Abrar Ahmed (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, 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 July has been published. August'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 Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

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! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

129.234.252.66

FYI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron -- PBS (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Blumenschein House‎

Thanks for uploading all those nice photos of the house! Very cool place.

Did you get to see his touring retrospective exhibit? Good stuff.

Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello. I am glad that you were alert enough to remove that book cover from "Particle Accelerators in Popular Culture." I didn't realize it was non-free content, and apparently neither did anyone else.

Regarding the "See also" edits. I can see that perhaps the connection is not clear with "Timescape" and "Fast Forward" according to their summaries. The novel "FlashForward", by Robert J. Sawyer, involves the search for the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider. CERN published a "Science and Fiction" page interviewing Sawyer and physicists about the book and the TV series based on it. Here is a link discussing this issue, and you will see the connection: [7].

In addition, "Particle Accelerators in Popular Culture" and "The God Particle" are, also, both related to Angels & Demons. They are related through the science of elementary particles (particle physics), which uses particle accelerators to advance the science. In addition, the Large Hadron Collider is designed to eventually discover the Higgs boson, nicknamed the "God particle".

I hope this is helpful. Supposedly Timescape involves particle accelerators, etc., but I am willing to not worry about this article being in the See also sections.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Particle accelerators in popular culture link is sufficient, IMO, since it includes all the others and makes clear the relationships. Yworo (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking. I can agree. Thanks for discussing the matter---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Childhood's End

Would you be interested in working on the article entitled Childhood's End (the book is by Arthur C. Clarke) ? I notice that one of your areas of focus is science ficiton. I have thought of working on it myself (as I stated on the talk page). However, I have other projects that really take up a lot of my time. I might get to this article in about a year. In any case, it really needs some work. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit of Ubuntu

Hello, Yworo. I'd like to ask why do you consider updating references in an article as unconstuctive? In Ubuntu I replaced some URLs with the current ones as the old URLs redirect to new pages of which some are unrelated to the original pages. Is it against some Wikipedia policy to make such updates? --Rprpr (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lump Ball

Thanks for the useful reply on my behalf. I've begun grad school, and Mondays look like they'll normally be my heaviest days (that's the case this week, at any rate), so I wasn't able to put together a satisfactory response until just a few minutes ago. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the extra links in Web Ontology Language!

Hi Yworo. Thanks for removing the extra links in Web Ontology Language! Looks *much* better thanks to your work. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Emma Watson Article

Just to clear things up, I merely wished to remove the duplicate image, and wanted to add something to to the last statement of the paragraph under the Fashion and Modelling. If I screwed up anything else I do apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkemagik (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

Hello Yworo. Not sure whether or not you are watching my page, but I responded there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, FYI I think you were right. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I was happy to see

the article on Martin appear and figured I could contribute something. Which I did and you improved. I was a bit saddened to discover that my photograph of his grave-site was one of about 4 or 5 thousand that I recently lost in a computer crash. Oh well, perhaps latter another will happen. Einar akaCarptrash (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is the gravesite? Kit Carson Park? I'm in Taos, so I could take a new pic... Yworo (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

it is something like Sierra Vista Cemetery. it is where Couse and M Rogers and a bunch more are buried. It is on the main road north from town on the right (leaving Taos) on the curves before you get to Cids. Happy hunting. Carptrash (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I know where you mean. Yworo (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Not Reference" on Nosferatu article.

Hi, what specifically makes Amazon.com not something that can be referenced, and why was ComicMonsters.com ignored/rejected? I need to know so I don't substitute in references with the same problem you've found... -- 4.153.87.168 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse Karmaisking

Hello, I've noticed that you've recently reported a sockpuppet of this banned user to SPI. If you have more relevant information, could add it to the long-term abuse report? Thanks. Netalarm^talk 18:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Continuing disruption

Did you plan to address the continuing disruption/incivility on the Libertarianism page? If so, is there a link for the discussion? BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on something for WP:AN/I, but it takes so long to put together all the diffs. I've put a draft here. Feel free to add to it. I've an appt coming up and probably won't be able to finish it until later. Yworo (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Stewart Jamieson

The article is continuing to be edited, with bias wording now inserted without a source. The editor Studioce is a personal friend with Jamieson, and Jamieson solicited him and other editors to make changes to the page, which was why the page was blocked from unregistered users. A look at the history shows unregistered users took an unusual and sudden interest int he article all at the same time, making their fist and only edits to the page. The article is being turned into promotional piece for Jamieson, who apparantly takes great interest and pride that he would be given an article on Wikipedia. I know it is a lot of work for an article which may not exist soon, but I do not want Jamieson or his fans to think that they can hijack Wikipedia to their own benefit. Thank you for your time and troubles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You're both edit warring and I've reported both of you for breaking 3RR. There's no excuse. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And continuing to edit after the editor was warned? Or to edit in a disruptive manner? Refusing to discuss on the talk page as I proposed and find consensus? Allowing the subject of the article to solicit edits to his page? All these things are acceptable to you? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The three revert rule is a hard limit. It has no exceptions. You are engaged in a content dispute. You are both editing in a disruptive manner. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc., etc. Yworo (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it truly necessary to remove the names of a person's parents in the absence of a specific citation? One can find numerous biographies with details such as birth dates, parentage, academic degrees, and other basic information that is provided without citation. Seaghdha (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For living persons, all information needs to be cited. If there aren't any third-party biographies that contain that information, that typically means that the person simply isn't notable. If there are other biographies of living persons without citations for the information they contain, those articles need to be fixed. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument on Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

magocsi

Thanks for the help on there, I was about to get into 3RR territory on that edit war.--Львівське (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Marknutley

You may want to take a look at discussion there. Whilst you were following convention, and one I strongly agree with, technically it isn't against policy and BlueRobe can remove the notice if xe wishes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll let other editors resolve it. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I'll try; the article looks like a complete and total mess. I didn't even know it existed until you showed me. Toa Nidhiki05 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool; I'm currently working on adding a definition (using the Libertarian Party as an example), as well as a notable thinkers/organizations lists. You edit it or find sources if you want; I'm also making sure to note that, although there are two forms or Libertarianism (Right and Left), Right-leaning forms tend to dominate Libertarian thought in the US. In a non-biased way, of course. :) Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Which period?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=387377133&oldid=387373294 btw, thx for the link today, a much welcomed token of civility in a heated debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't mess up the period, it was the previous editor. It was the last period in the lead. I wish diff would make punctuation-only change more obvious, somehow. And you are welcome, I just stumbled upon it while comparing how Conservatism, Liberalism had resolved these sorts of problems. Yworo (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Expert opinions

Here is a good example of why expert opinions published outside the academic mainstream carry no extra weight. Arthur C. Brooks, a noted expert on charitable giving wrote two books using the same data, one for an academic audience and one for Republicans. Notice the chart used in the first book that shows the level of volunteering in the U.S. is at the same level as Canada, New Zealand, Malta and Australia.[8] CA, NZ and AU are the three countries most similar to the US. In the second book he uses the same data to argue that the lack of social welfare programs makes Americans more generous. See how by omitting the four countries that tied with the U.S., the new chart shows the US to be the overwhelming leader in the level of volunteering.[9] There are countless examples of this, especially in think tanks. Unless someone is willing to present their views to academic scrutiny they carry no more weight than the next man's. TFD (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hitchcock

??? It was just a small tweak! Oh I've only seen a few, NBNW, Vertigo, Catch a Thief, Rear Window, Man who knew too much. Very good though. Pity about modern cinema. I'm going to sound like Neil Harvey... everything was better in tehh old days blah blah YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was only a tweak, but it was an educated tweak by someone who had clearly seen and liked the film. The old days may have been better for cinema, but would you really want to be composing an encyclopedia article on an old manual typewriter?! Yworo (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, not the machinery, ovbviously YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha. My daughter wants a typewriter for her birthday so she can write spy novels like authors did during the cold war! Yworo (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 2010 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or did the Libertarianism tension level just drop?!

Looks like we'll be more free to pursue reasonable discussion at Libertarianism now. Always a good thing! BigK HeX (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's possible we may be able to get somewhere. I'd sure like to see the article better organized. I like the sources that say that the common shared element and defining characteristic of libertarianism is "full self-ownership", with the left/right divide being about ownership of resources. See [10] for sources. This is the one common element for the initial definition of libertarianism. Yworo (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Updated Tau Epsilon Phi

Please advise if sourced properly. Corey —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEPs4justice (talk • contribs) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update i will find secondary source if availible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TEPs4justice (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Most lawsuits are not notable and will not be added to articles until there is a ruling on the case. Yworo (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)"

This was a ruling. An order to show cause with the judge's signature. Thats why I sourced that document. I will update the content in the material to state what it is. What are your thoughts?

No, a final ruling. An order to show cause is not a ruling, it's an order. It's part of the ongoing process. It ain't over until there is a ruling or it's dismissed. Yworo (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear- whenever a judge makes a decision it is considered a ruling. (Orders, motions, etc) Since only final adjudications seem to be acceptable sources I will follow that policy.

Can you please reference the part that deals with only final court rulings being acceptable sources? Thanks . teps4justice. —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC).

Court documents are primary sources. In general, we don't use primary sources, especially primary legal sources, because of interpretation issues. In specific, for legal cases, we only report ongoing legal cases if they are in the media, because then there are secondary sources. A final ruling is an exception to this, because not all cases get reported in the media. It's common sense. If you'd like a second opinion, ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Court documents are usually used to grind axes. That's not permitted here. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo you wrote "we only report ongoing legal cases if they are in the media, because then there are secondary sources." A seconday source was added from the media. What are you doing? Why are you going against the policy? This last edit was properly sourced with a secondary source as wiki required. Why the undo???? TEPs4justice (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. TEPs4justice (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re

You need to establish a solid consensus which is what I clearly stated on the article talk page. If you choose to violate 3RR to prove some sort of point, have at it. As far as "tag teaming", spare me the lecture as there's no team. I commented on the article previously and it's on my watchlist. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how the Wikipedia process works. Those who oppose the change to conform more closely to policy and guidelines need to give some specific reasons why the non-compliant placements are better. Yworo (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Libertine "plot too long" tag

Hi. I had just spent hours cutting down the plot section of The Libertine (2004 film) which was much too long (as I had pointed out already, stating my intention to edit it severely), when you came by and smacked a "plot too long" tag on it. I therefore went back to work and cut it some more, and then removed your tag. I have never been through this process (involving such a tag, I mean). Does the current edit need to meet with your approval, or have I fulfilled the request to "make the article better" simply by doing more work on it? I didn't write the original, nor any of what made it so long--just cut it down after seeing what a mess it was. My notes are on the pages talk page. If I need to do something else, please let me know (rather than just hit it with another tag). Be specific, if you have a particular complaint. I am not attached to the page, as I said, I just happened to have come by to check the name of an actor, saw the mess, and decided to clean it up. But if something more needs to happen, please let me know.

Also, can you explain why you put a tag on it, rather than just edited it yourself? When I saw how long it was, I said so, gave people some time to offer input, then came back and did the work. It wouldn't have occurred to me to tag it, though I suppose I might do that in the future on some other page. Helping me understand your thought process would be useful for me, as I am relatively new here, and until recently only edited for clarity, style, and grammar. I'm getting more involved in articles now, and guidance is always welcome. Thanks. --TEHodson 09:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

pipe and tabor

Hello there Yworo,

I am responding to your message about my editing the 'pipe and tabor' page. I can see why you removed the link to the Pipe and Tabor Compendium in the external links. I hope it is OK if I explain why I suggested this link.

I am the UK expert on the history of the pipe and tabor. I am putting my research up on the web on my own webpage because there is currently nowhere else for it to go. (Although soon there will be a paper publication with different images and historical information.) There are external links to personal pipe and tabor pages in Spain and Portugal, so I thought it would be OK to link to my site with its emphasis on the UK.

The Taborers Society, (of which I am a member) is already an external link and acknowledges my research and expertise, is currently setting up an editorial board to vet some contributions to its pages. They have been doing this for over two years now. I want to get the information out to people as soon as I can, so started the Pipe and Tabor Compendium online. Everyone who is a member of the Taborers Society and of the pipe n tabor discussion group know of this site, and some contribute to it in various ways. This is where the Taborers Society FAQ pages reside and also The Taborers Society members page - it is purely for temporary convenience.

This is why I would have liked a link on the wiki Pipe and Tabor page - so that everyone can have access to that information. When the Pipe and Tabor Compendium moves to The Taborers Society pages, the link should be changed.

regards

Createthemooduk (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

external links to Netflix

My apologies. I added those links with the best of intentions, but I can see how that's undesirable. I'm going back through to remove those now, and I'll try to remain within protocol in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Dillenburg (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		Thanks for offering such an elegant solution to the debate on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Archives with an ISSN number is not a notable third party resource?

May I know why is that ?-- Sukehisashi (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I only saw the first reference, but I notice now that the ISSN comes up empty-handed at WorldCat.org. Typically, several sources are going to have to have taken note of the subject before it is considered notable enough for inclusion. They are going to need to discuss it in some depth, not just mention it. I don't think that's the case here. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the website you have provided WorldCat.org. I think it is because the website only provide search in certain languages. I will put the issue up on the discuss page, thank you for the suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukehisashi (talk • contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Despite our disagreement on this particular issue, thanks for your patience in explaining me some subtle points of Wikipedia policies, I certainly appreciate it. IMHO, it is a pity that we're on different sides on this specific issue :-). Ipsign (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

Hi Yworo,

Thanks for taking a interest in this page. It turns out a lot of the sections don't have citations included in the entries, but the actual pages for the topic have lots. I've undone your edit and am in the process of going through them all one by one to either add citations or remove the entries, hope this is OK. I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide with this. Cheers A13ean (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for File:Bridge_of_Lost_Desire_-_St._Martin's_Press.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bridge_of_Lost_Desire_-_St._Martin's_Press.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Bridge_of_Lost_Desire_-_St._Martin's_Press.jpg

I have tagged File:Bridge_of_Lost_Desire_-_St._Martin's_Press.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Strangers

I love it as a concept, but you know how I like to try to use the photos to break up large fields of gray real estate — and we only have three photos to do that with here. There's a photo at the Commons of Bruno sitting in the crowd at Guy's match, where everyones' heads are going left-right — except Bruno's — (which is my third-favorite shot in all of Hitchcock), but it loses a lot as a still. If you like it, though, I wouldn't mind it going in. Hey, maybe the other two photos there could be your face-to-face... and we still have the three to break up the gray. Yeah — let's go for it! — Harry, HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about your idea, the more I like it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Any way we can get a "double-wide" caption under those two abutted photos? It would tie them together nicely. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I just now saw you put 'em in! Looks good! Any chance we could nudge the two "named" shots up so we could shoe-horn Walker's "named" shot back in in the "Plot" section? I hate to lose him, cause he's at least as important as Granger or Roman. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is room in the plot section. Not sure what to do about that... Perhaps put Walker back in cast and move the double image down to the Themes and motifs section? (which incidentally could use expansion, there was a bunch of OR or at least uncited stuff in there). Yworo (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you edit on a widescreen monitor? I do, and on my monitor there's plenty of room to stagger photos left and right. Just not sure how everything looks on regular-width. Let me try something and if you don't like it, revert it. Just please don't make a save there until I leave another note here. Thanks. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry — it took two edits; still easily revertible. It actually looks real good on my widescreen, and unless you think it squeezes the text too much on a regular monitor, I'd say go with it. Any chance on my double-wide caption? Sure would tie 'em together well. What if we removed the captions from the abutted pair, put a "phantom" non-existent photo, twice as wide, beneath 'em, and wrote a wide caption to that? Whaddya think? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I use a MacBook Pro, 1440x900. I think I have my font size up a notch or two for readability. Yworo (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the "hind end" could use some more material, and also agree about the shakiness of what had been in there. Only source I have right now is Spoto's Dark Side book; my Hitchcock/Truffaut is out in my storage locker, many miles distant. I hate to put in substantial stuff all from the same source (though as I remember Spoto, he waxed more eloquently about SOAT than any other. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of sticking the "bleacher" photo in, with a caption. See what you think I like it, but won't be offended if you yank it. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I spent considerable time trying to "trick" the system into giving me my double-wide caption, but it was too smart for me and resisted all my gambits. Another idea, though: we could photo-shop the two images together, post it at 400 px, and it would allow us a wide caption. Just a thought. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Multiple image for documentation. Add the footer= and footer_align=center parameters. Yworo (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for indulging me on the caption business — and for showing me how to do it! I think your dual-photo idea worked out real well. I'll try to dig out my Spoto and see if I can't find at least a few things to fill out the bottom. Are you pleased with the way things turned out? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting SOAT article you might never have seen. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Not very long but you were right. Hadn't seen it. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was "advance." That was a bleary-eyed manual type job. Thanks for the eagle-eye! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations on your latest Barnstar! Dunno if you've been looking in on the Strangers Production section, but I've added quite a bit to it and still have to do the runaway merry-go-round sequence. Plus, I'm going to try to fill out the "Themes" section, though it will be mostly from Spoto. All of which is to say we've got a lot of text — a lot of gray — going on down in that area. I like the way the photos look in "Plot" and "Cast" and would rather not mess with them. I looked at the trailer and there are three good shots yet to be extracted from it: a close two-shot of Roman and Granger, a romantic kissy-poo shot... Granger and Walker on the carousel, just getting ready to fight... and Granger with Walker in a tux that I think is when Bruno gets up out of his father's bed. Now I don't have the facility to capture these three shots. Do we know someone who has both the software and the DVD and can help us out? Congrats again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the trailer again and there are quite a few shots that would work nicely, including the shot of Miriam's death in the eyeglass lens, which I wrote about at some length in the text. Also the two having lunch on the train, and Bruno in line at the Tunnel of Love (a close-up). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Correction: eyeglass shot is not in the trailer, it's at Google Images. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

MacBook, I'm not so sure of. Cyberlink PowerDVD for PC has a "button" that grabs an image, but mine doesn't seem to work — plus, I only have the early "flipper" disk with the two film versions on each side and trailer on neither. I'll ask around, but all my best sources for computer knowledge are PC guys, and militant ones at that. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the photo! I really like the way this article is going. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to seem pushy, but if you should have the time, could you grab me the two-shot of Bruno and Guy at the table in the train compartment? I'd like to put it in the "bleacher shot" spot and then move that one down. Thanks. Thanks also for fixing the sizing of the cameo vertical; I learned all the nomenclature many, many years ago and never gussed a "vertical" would come to be called an "upright." I also remember when the National League had eight teams. Thanks again — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha — not only do I remember the little dot, I remembers when TVs had a vertical hold knob prominently on the front — cause you had to use it a lot — and radios (even in cars) that took ten or so seconds to come on because the tubes had to warm up. Thanks again for your help on Strangers! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much for those Stranger shots! I know right where I want to use each one. They're good-looking, too — are they straight captures, or did you photo-shop 'em? As soon as I get myself sorted out here, I'll be putting them in and writing captions. Thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, your Strangelove shots look great — they really, really help that article (which itself really needs help with all its redundancies). Thanks again for the Strangers photos, all of which I put in and captioned. The merry-go-round fight and the cameo reenactment will look much better after I enter some text I'm preparing for their vicinities. Your help has really brought this article to life — thanks again! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I come as a supplicant, hat earnestly in hand. I've gone rather long on the hind-end of Strangers and still have two short sections to go (I learned just a few weeks ago that English includes a word "gasbaggery"). If you have the time and the inclination, I could use a few more captures from the trailer. I'm hoping for: Bruno in line at the tunnel of love when the light slowly reveals his face (probably at the tail-end is best)... Bruno at the wheel of his tunnel-of-love boat... and the Stranger on a Train title, the one supered over the 2-shot, not the exterior of Bruno's house, for the last photo at the end. I had been hoping for the scene in tuxedo from Mr. Anthony's bedroom, but I don't think there's a usable frame in there. One last thing if we want to get daring: a side-by-side job of the cop firing his pistol and the carousel operator (operatically) being hit. Not sure either would be too good by itself, but together, they might be kinda cool. They're facing the right way, too. Then, I would say, we picked this carcass pretty clean. No rush on this, of course... whenever you have time, inclination and gumption to do it. Thanks! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I should have time tomorrow or Sunday... we'll see. Yworo (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Somebody sneaked a 350px photo into Dr. Strangelove! (Maybe we can get him/her to enlarge the video player at Double Indemnity). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it have little, tiny, people in it? Yworo (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's Christmas on Hallowe'en! Thank you so much for the photographic bounty! I like the two "shadowy" shots together, because they give me the chance to talk dark-n-light in a caption, and also 'cause they work well on the left. It's turning out that we have a pretty good storyboard running down the right; consequently I'm moving the kissypoo shot to the left and the cameo as well since they're not plot points. I know you're not fond of left-flush shots, but I hope you can live with these couple. Thanks again for the captures — gonna make us a nice-looking page, I think. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you feel about moving the kissypoo photo up a paragraph so that text and subhead do a full runaround? That way, it wouldn't look like the photo references the text, which it doesn't. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna break for dinner myself. I can't believe it's been 17 years since that Tim Burton Hallowe'en movie came out! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, sir, I think we're about there — thanks in no small part to your terrific captures. I lament having to give up having the strangle shot and the carousel fight shot adjacent to the text where they're described, but I do like the way there's a sort of vertical storyboard running down the righr. I've half a mind to try and score a production still from the Senator's party — either Bruno strangling Mrs. Cunningham or Barbara with the lighter reflected in her glasses, to put in between the bleacher shot and the Bruno-in-line, but I don't want to press my luck with the non-free images. Anyway, thanks again, so much, for your help... I hope you're pleased with the way it turned out. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

NYPost - Pinto

If I understand this article well, it can not be used to show that Donny Deutsch or Jacob Arabo have visited Pinto for consultation. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Those facts are supported by the other references. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps split them then, and add each source after the appropriate names? Debresser (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. Yworo (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Social Nudity

Thanks for taking an interest in this mess. Can you give me some advice about what one is supposed to do to sort it out. I have attempted to contact Dandelion who set it up but have had no response- but I have a vague memory that the motive was to gather together a lot of this parochial attack material in one spot, as it was hindering the development of other pages. What do you suggest needs keeping- and have you any further references to support them as the ones given were not valid- it was while trying to do that, that I discovered that there was actually nothing there. As you see I grouped my deletions. I am far happier working with a colleague than on my own, as this is fairly low on my todo list. It has been suggested that we just go for AfD, but will only do that if I have a mentor.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly impressed by your speed of typing ! --ClemRutter (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Now you are back, shall we try and get this sorted out. My instinct is revert your last edit- and star with a tabula rasa, rather than to leave any of the tripe a moment longer ( reasons on the talk page and the edit comments) but if you know a better way.. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Blanking pages is never correct. Either improve the article or nominate it for deletion. I gave you the link with the instructions for that. Yworo (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, AfD has been held up by your roll back. Please say which of the fact that I had to remove- could be saved and how. If there had been anything to save, then I would have done so- what makes this page different is that there is nothing there. Blanking is an irresponsible act that is committed with out reason- my severe edits were notified first on the talk page- the reason for each deletion was explained- that is not blanking. This is a difficult edit- and we are left with a page of unreferenced, parochial bile. So the question again. What do you think can be saved and why? --ClemRutter (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You understand it wrong. You put a proposed deletion on the article. An admin declined to delete the article. After the deletion was declined by the admin, I rolled it back, because you should never have blanked article content before proposing it for deletion. An article should be proposed or nominated for deletion as it is, so that the admin or those responding to the deletion can see the state of the article that you object to. The next step is to nominate it for AfD, which is a completely different thing than you did before. That's why I recommended that you follow the instructions. I have no interest in either improving or deleting the article, but I will not let you blank content which is pretty much vandalism. If you don't understand Wikipedia process, take the article off your watchlist and ignore it. Go do something else. Yworo (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the outcome, but it was not an action I could have done myself, it needed a critical third party. Thanks. We had an interesting case here where policy and theory suggested the course you followed but on examining the content and the background here you could see it was not appropriate. Give me a shout if I can repay the favour anytime.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing on Newfrontiers

Hi Yworo. I've just picked up on your edit on the Newfrontiers page, which I keep an eye on. I have not touched most of what you've done, except to make a fresh edit to ensure one reference to some external discussion of spiritual abuse remains on the page. The research paper linked to in the Wikipedia article constitutes a reliable source and indicates the existence of the problem, so I think providing a reference directing users to further reading is only fair. The link is to a discussion which includes contributors from both sides of the debate, on a site which is renowned for the quality of its exchanges, and points to a location where it is designed to remain indefinitely. It is a characteristic of Newfrontiers that they suppress criticism of their organisation, so I think pointing to some open discussion is important. Please get back in touch on my talk page or the article's discussion page if you'd like to discuss this further! EutychusFr (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We are never allowed to point at online discussion forums. They are not reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between a source and background, isn't there? The link is not posted to support one particular point of view but to point to a debate concerning a phenomenon for which sourced evidence is supplied: spiritual abuse, as attested by the journal article. I think the page without this link is less objective than with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EutychusFr (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't link to forums because there is no editorial control and people can say whatever they want, true or untrue. They can even maliciously create multiple user accounts to do so. We simply don't ever link to forums. Links to forums are not even allowed in the external links section. They create a liability issue for Wikipedia. See WP:ELNO #10. Yworo (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #10 mentions discussion forums as something that should be "generally avoided", not prohibited. If the ban on links of this nature is in fact absolute, I'd like to see that in writing. If it isn't, then I think that in this instance, there is a case for the link (which points to for-and-against discussion of the issues, not personal attacks) being included.EutychusFr (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. This is a frequently asked question answered multiple times there. Or ask at the noticeboard itself. We do not have a mission to "expose" cults. We report only on what reliable sources have written.

Also, if the forum contain any discussion of living persons, which it does, then the much stricter BLP policy applies, specifically WP:BLPSPS. Note that this policy does use the word "never". Yworo (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it does, it does, but in that case I find the burden of proof skewed rather unfairly in favour of whoever puts up the article in the first place. This is not about "exposure" (and I haven't alleged anything is a cult here, either) but about adding perspective and balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EutychusFr (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, despite the vagueness of WP:EL, we do never link to forums. It has nothing to do with the content but simply with the reliability. Also, there is a conflict of interest, because you are (at least) a member of the forum. In any case, forums, blogs, mailing lists, etc. are removed from every article. There is nothing unfair about that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. By definition, everything must be sourced to reliable sources. We don't include any personal opinions or links to personal opinions, except to those of known and published experts on a topic. Yworo (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the record, a member of the forum is all I am, and not one particularly in step with the prevaling views expressed there. If I had wanted to link somewhere arguing the points solely in agreement with my view, I would have attempted to do so, but didn't, precisely because of the potential conflict of interest. The discussion linked to contains views opposing my own. That said, I'll accept your call on this and continue to watch the Newfrontiers page, with the benefit of the additional links you have supplied giving the reasons for your edit.EutychusFr (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. By all means, if there are secondary sources reported on these differing views (books, magazine and newspaper articles), by all means add them to the article. Once reported on, such views become notable. Yworo (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

Thanks for pointing that out. I disagree with it completely (red links encourage page creation, and sometimes the See Also section is the most appropriate place for them), but it's currently the rules as you say :) Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to inspire others, not myself :) Malick78 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Metropolis

That's a new rule. It looked to me like the material from the new restoration hadn't been included. I'll remove it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External media template in Themes in Avatar

Yworo, thanks for your imput in Themes in Avatar. May I ask you to refrain from removing the external media template from the article for the time being until we get a broader and more educated feedback hopefully leading to a consensus as to its proper use. As you could see, I have placed a RfC tag there. I am not at all opposed to removing the template if its current placement is indeed against Wiki policies, but I just want to make sure that it is there (or not there) for a reason other than our personal preferences. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, we are awaiting your comment on the Talk page to reach a consensus. Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, since there seems to be a weak consensus to keep the template in the lead, and since its inclusion in the article is currently justified by its general use throughout WP, I am going to revert your edit that removed it from the lead until the time when the template is deleted or its documentation amended such as to substantiate your proposed edit. Many thanks and regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

founding year

You need not undo your strikeout at the Eastside Sun AFD, but for clarity's sake an article dated October 28, 2009 refers to it as the "three-year-old monthly Eastside Sun...".[11] So even without an exact founding date, as a founding year 2006 seems reasonable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Franco-American Portal

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome editor?  :) Student7 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that my sister-in-law's dog's name was Jack. Your note made me realize that it is really Jacques! So seldom does one see a dog's name spelled!  :) Student7 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hurry on over to Notorious Doublewide

Look what your good idea started! I think this is the best use of it yet. I'm hustling you over to it sooner rather than later 'cause I'm afraid the Thought Police will swoop in and take the photos—and me—off to Room 101! Regards. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert on the Astrology entry

Yworo: please do not just revert edits that others make. On Astrology, in the first paragraph, it read "Few astrologers believe that the movements and positions of celestial bodies either directly influence life on Earth or correspond to events experienced on a human scale. More common is the idea that astrology is a symbolic language, an art form, or a form of divination." First, "few" and "more common" are weasel words and have no place on WP. Second, you provided one source for the first claim -- "The Dictionary of the History of Ideas" -- a book that may or may not be an objective, credible source, but given that its author's area of expertise was antiquity, and that his study of astrology seems to have extended no further than Byzantium, I doubt its relevance. The sentence here is parsed in the present -- "Few astrologers believe..." -- and you in no way show this to be true. Unless and until you can show that fewer than 50% of astrologers today share this belief, and you back that up with credible external sources, you should not make such claims. I'm removing that claim. If you revert it, I will apply for that section to be protected against edits.Bricology (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Option

Varna burgas (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Hi, I have just noticed that you deleted my contribution to this page. Recently, I have been working on a paper for one of my classes. Even though Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information from an academic point of view, I like checking out the information posted there. Unfortunately, when I read the article about Option, I was quite dissappointed about the lack of information there. Therefore, I have decided to add some value. As you know, if you cite something you have to give credit to the author. That was exactly what I have done. Despite the fact that you have removed my paragraph, I strongly believe that this piece of information is quite valuable. Thanks

Pinto

You are being just as bad as the problematic editor. Chill out. And do note that any reverts by you will be a breach of 3/rr. More importantly: Go Dawgs.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AOR

I would bet the Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians article now at AfD is similar if not identical to the deleted Ancient Order of Rosicrucians, and that User:MentorRC and User:Mentor rc quack appropriately to be socks. MSJapan (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't that surprise me at all? Seems these occult guys all think they are the best thing since sliced bread if they manage to get 3 followers and a website. Yworo (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Still a heavy hitter on the undo button I see

Frankly, I doubt you've read one word of any of the so-called religious text from Reformed Druids of North America but if you'd bother to give me a persuasive answer regarding the questions I posed in the edit summaries, I won't just return the favor by announcing you're wrong and reverting you.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to change it to primary sources. They are all sources affiliated with the subject, regardless of whether they are an anthology of collected documents. Yworo (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets say you wanted to be affiliated with them. There, it's official. Lets say you want to quit. Done, you did. Even for a neopagan tradition, the subject is particularly subjective. If there was no "unofficial collection", it wouldn't be such an easy assumption that any particular thing is straight from the horse's mouth. In a perfect world, the founder, administration, and official publications would be primary; secondary sources would be found in academic journals; and WP would have one article on Wicca and one on OTO. So no, even if we had the luxury of additional sources, (neglected by the recognized but unofficial collector/editor/publisher), we would still need to evaluate each author's material on a case by case basis. If they aren't official representatives etc., their religious affiliations are immaterial to questions of reliability, primary and secondary. (Would it make any sense if all Catholics are primary sources on Catholicism?) Relative to the sourcing of other specific trads, they're really not that bad, but I think very few of the trad articles would survive an AfD.

Anyway, like I said in the edit summary, well done. If I had known the religious text tagger replaced an October {primary}, I would have just restored the status quo and been done with it.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd kinda disagree with that. I've heard of them and suspected they might be notable, so I did a Google book search, which returned a couple hundred books that at least mention them. If only 10% of those go into more depth than just naming them, there should be plenty of sourcing for a decent article that doesn't rely on primary sources. If the primary sources were then used only for a few additional salient points that couldn't be sourced elsewhere, it'd still be a decent article. However, I'm not really interested enough to do all that work myself. If you were to start on it, I'd certainly help out as I have time, though. Yworo (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, good for them. I think they're cool. Definitely, the druids I'd want to go have a beer with, but I was just trying to undo the tagger's crazy making. It sounds to me like you should remove the Notoriety tag so people aren't discouraged from trying a search.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to the Nortel article

Your continued contributions via reversion of bad edits, but mainly via additions of new and updated material, are appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Last Exit on Brooklyn

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SogoTrade

• SogoTrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I appreciate that the AfD exists, however it was closed in Feb. 2008 and that article then deleted. If you check the current article history it was moved from the title SogoInvest and has a continuous undeleted history dating back to 2006 so this is not a simple case of reposting. I could replace the PROD or perhaps you would prefer to now go to AfD? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I guess I didn't look at the full history, looked like a recreation that never got deleted. Probably just needs clean up. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a notability tag but I should not now re-prod as it has been removed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possibly notable, given the (uncited) assertions in the text. I've added citation needed tags. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think it's borderline as I was unable to find convincing sources in GBooks or GNews. However if they are the cheapest or largest on-line broker of their type, then there is a good case against WP:ORG. I'll leave it on my watch-list with a view to AfD in the longer term if nothing pops up. Fæ (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bertrand Russell

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bertrand Russell. While I do understand the reasons for your reverts, simply persisting with reverting is not helpful. I see that you have discussed this on the article's talk page. Have you looked at WP:dispute resolution? Perhaps you could try to work towards a compromise wording that might get at least acquiescence from all editors involved. If that fails, then you may wish to post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard. However, Administrator intervention against vandalism, where you have already posted a report, is not suitable, as the edits you disagree with appear to be made in good faith, even if you believe they are mistaken. Also, if after further reasonable attempts to resolve the matter, temporary page protection may be helpful. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page for further help in either that respect or other respects, though I would prefer to hold back from that unless it really seems necessary. I have warned the IP editor about edit warring, including the possibility of a block, and naturally the same applies to you. I hope, however, that the dispute will not lead to such drastic action. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry and Thanks

I appreciate the wonderful edits and support - please ignore my revert, you were absolutely correct.

I am being recommended for deletion and merge left right and centre so I am a bit 'rushed' to protect my new articles.

Thanks again

--Kary247 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lorre

You have a point, so maybe you can revert, my recent edit made before reading this, but he seems to have considered himself more Hungarian than Austrian, so it might be a grey area. 86.146.195.35 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your constructive suggestions

Hi Yworo,

You seem to be taking a great interest in my editing - it seems that everywhere I go, you go!

• Thanks for you comments and advice re: the below, it is really helpful for me as I learn how things work. I have read as much as I can, but your comments have certainly helped.

• It is interesting to note that we can't cite by example, that must require some lateral thinking at times!

• Thanks again for taking an interest and offering so much detailed advice.

• Could I just suggest that you may want to get your ideas across in a way that is a little bit more supportive of people attempting to contribute to wikipedia, for example "barging in and changing articles" are you referring to the article I have created and develop all of the references for, postmodern religion?? Or are you perhaps referring to the new section I have added to entrepreneur "lifestyle entrepreneur"?

• Are you referring to the heading that you went in and reverted, after I added a new heading? If so, you may have noted that there are in excess of 100 issues with the article entrepreneur, so perhaps rather than fixing my edits( I have done about 20 edits here and added 3 good citations that all obviously passed your eagle eye for editing so we really are only talking about 1 minor slip up), you could work with me to fix the article and we could improve it together - there is some issues with link rot at the bottom and I am trying to read up and fix this but if you could help that would be great.

In terms of the spam issue, I think this was more connected to me citing by example, rather than spamming. I am not sure what you mean by 'this is your third warning about spam' could you perhaps give me an example? I have added your comments below for ease of reference. --Kary247 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again

Thanks for clearing that up about the watch list - I was wondering what was going on! I hope you can see that Entrepreneur is really full of bad content and I am trying to fix it up because I have added a section of mine to it and it is a bit shameful otherwise! Thanks again. --Kary247 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is groovy that you have put rare groove on your watch list. I can dig that you want the discussion to take place there. My soul purpose will be to ensure that you don't need to correct any of my work at rare groove, then you can just beat it, or start to dig it and help out :) It you know how to embedd and audio file - like bird does with the bird song, that would be fun.

--Kary247 (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rare groove

I'm staying out of the debate on the link itself, at least for now. But, following your most recent revert to Rare groove, I fealt that I needed to point out that the other user was blocked for edit warring, not spamming. The only reason I am not blocking you for the same activity is that you were not previously warned. However, your recent edit to again remove the link pushes you into the same 3RR issue within a 24 hour period. Please take this as a formal warning, and be more careful about that in the future. --- Barek (talk) - 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The last removal was my third removal in 24 hours, not my fourth. I know better than to remove it a fourth time. And it is spam, it has a shopping cart, sells MP3s, and has no encyclopedic content. I've reported it both to WikiProject Spam and proposed blacklisting it, since the spammer is so persistent. In any case, spamming is vandalism, and reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. However, I will not revert again if an established editor restores it to the article, as I've never been blocked and don't intend to take any chances about sullying my record in that respect. So if a "new" editor restores it to the article, I'll file a sockpuppet report. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I was staying out of the merits for the link itself, I only acted upon the edit warring. On this link specifically, looking at it now, I would also view it as spam unless consensus on the talk page that it was appropriate - I should have looked at it closer before issuing a warning. Per WP:ELBURDEN: "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." So it was clearly up to the other party to use the dispute resolution tools to find that consensus, if he/she thought it might exist.

On a secondary issue ... the edit warring was broadly applied/removing the link anywhere in the article, not just the EL section - which it was removed by you 3 times within the past 24 hours. Remember, edit warring does not require exceeding 3RR - that's just the "bright line" definition - but edit warring blocks can be made when a user hasn't technically exceeded 3RR, usually if it's an ongoing disruption, which was the threshold I was using that it was ongoing for a 48 hour period. In this case, I agree that there were mitigating circumstances - but still something to keep in mind. --- Barek (talk) - 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, understood. Thanks for your reply. I do my best not to cross any bright lines. I definitely don't ever want to be blocked. I am also quite happy to self-revert if asked to by an admin; if you should feel the need to block me in the future, please give me a chance to self-revert; I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong or even do it if I haven't crossed the line if asked to. Yworo (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User removing block notices

Hello again ... just wanted to point out that WP:BLANKING does not prevent users from removing block notices (blocks are not the same thing as bans or edit restrictions, which they cannot remove). If the user submits an unblock request and it gets declined, they cannot remove that; but the block notice itself is okay to be removed. --- Barek (talk) - 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have they changed that? My understanding was that it is supposed to remain so that other editors who may have been in discussion with the blocked editor elsewhere may easily know that the editor is blocked. Yworo (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that block notices should be required to remain; but the wording is such as to not apply the requirement for those (as far as I know, the current wording has remained essentially the same for at least a year, possibly much longer). The argument is that a block has a system generated message when someone views a user's contributions, so a user can't try gaming the system by hiding that fact ... but for the items identified in WP:BLANKING, if a user removed those, there is no system generated message letting you know those events existed - which could potentially allow a user to try hiding those facts. --- Barek (talk) - 21:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess that makes some sense. I have seen that message when editing a blocked user's talk page before. But you don't get that notification if your discussion wasn't on the user's talk page, if you were talking on your own talk page or on an article talk page. Seems to me it's better to leave the notice so that other involved users may see it in their watchlist or when they go to the user talk page to see what's up, rather than assuming they will try to post on the user's talk page. They might not. Yworo (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe Sioufi

FYI, that article is not an autobiography. That's not to express any opinion on its quality. I have tweaked the rationale to something which I hope is in line with your intended rationale. Mr. Sioufi has emailed, I am explaining the deletion process to him. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your change. It's for Yworo to say. It's good that you posted this here to let Yworo know, but, in my view, you should have simply informed Yworo of your opinion without changing the template on the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The name of the user who created the article is StarlightPhotography. This is the name of Joe Sioufi's company. Note that the user page says "StarlightPhotography / Joe Sioufi" right at the top, and gives a link to joesioufi.com. If it's not an autobiography, it's written by an employee, which is pretty much the same thing. However, a previous revision of the user page is pretty explicit: "Hello my name is Joe from Starlightphotography". Yworo (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:BLP in deletion rationales, please. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Donna Musil

Please provide the Wikipedia policy on external links.

Please also note that each external link was nonprofit, and highly relevant to the topic.

The same for the Wikipedia "See Also" links that you deleted.

Please note: You have a responsibility, before deleting content, to thoroughly understand the topic of the article. If you don't really understand the article topic, then you can't make good decisions about what to delete.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Unrooted Childhoods Article

Again, your removal of categories should depend on being well familiar with the subject.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please See my Talk Page

I just responded to your posts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Telemachus.forward#See_also_and_categories

Thanks, Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)